The Next Right

Ridicule the Race Kremlinologists

Jon Henke — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:31:24 -0500

Now that it's politically convenient for them to do so, the Left is divining racism in every tea leaf. Kremlinology lives again, but this time it is directed at Republicans. And practiced by jerks.

The only way to deal with this is ridicule.

(via Atlas Blogged)

PA-11: Barletta up in new poll

Soren Dayton — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:07:01 -0500

Lou Barletta is up over crooked, machine Democrat Paul Kanjorski in a new internal poll that they released.

Paul Kanjorski (D-inc): 41 (42)
Lou Barletta (R): 45 (47)

Normally, we wouldn't discuss internal polls, but it is all we have, and, as the left-leaning Swing State Project notes, it is all that we have:

although the numbers are probably best served with a grain of salt, it's sort of telling that we haven't seen rival numbers from Kanjorski or the DCCC. In fact, Kanjorski's response to the poll doesn't exactly inspire confidence:

A Kanjorski campaign spokesman declined to comment on the poll.

That's the exact same response that Kanjorski's camp gave in June. Weak, sir.

We are going to win this one. As I previously noted, the Dems are runnign scared. So give Lou Barletta some money.

Courting the Asian-American Vote

Matt Moon — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:49:46 -0500

I really hate the paradigm of the “hyphenated American”. And I really hate talking about race and politics in such limiting terms. And in an election year where we are debating whether or not a certain presidential candidate will take us into a “post-racial” era (as Matt Bai talks about in the next NYT Magazine), any discussion about how one tries to appeal to different ethnic communities seems to be both very silly and very relevant at the same time.

But Megan Shank of Newsweek wrote one of the first pieces of this cycle on the mystery of the Asian-American voter, and more importantly the mystery of the Asian-American non-voter; as Shank describes, “both naturalized and U.S.-born Asian Americans have lower rates of voter registration than do non-Asians.” As an "American citizen of Korean descent" (that’s my way of getting rid of the hyphen), I felt compelled this one time to respond and really start a discussion about what makes Asian-Americans tick.

Now, what I am about to opine on comes from a combination of life experience being raised by Korean immigrants, my limited experience of dealing with Asian communities around the nation, and maybe some bald assertions about what Asian-Americans care about.

(Sidenote on the title of Shank’s article: it’s “Crouching Voter, Hidden Direction.” Some might find that offensive. I find it hilarious.)

Shank starts out by describing the potential demographics:

“Their numbers might be small compared to other ethnic groups—only 5 percent of the total population—but they’ve been growing nine to 10 times faster than the general population, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census. That could swing the ballot in key states, according to ‘Awakening the Sleeping Giants?,’ a recent report by researchers at UCLA.”

But it seems as though Shank assumes that larger and growing numbers will automatically lead into some sort of political power. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, the netroots of the Left and the extremist environmentalist movement have shown that a small group only needs very good organizational skills to make an impact. Furthermore, it seems that different ethnic groups have different senses of where “community” lies in their list of priorities. It is obvious that African-American and Latino-American citizens place community about as high they do family. From my experience, this is not true for Asian-Americans. The reason one probably does not see large organized political movements from Asian-Americans is that they place family as the highest priority, far above any other item. Pride in being Chinese, Korean, or Thai ranks far less than the pride in being part of your family. Succeed, and you bring blessings to your family; fail, and you bring shame.

In that light, if any candidate and any party want to court the Asian vote, “family first” should be the two words used in any policy item. Conservatives can put families first by demanding accountability in education. Conservatives can put families first by making our streets safer for our children to walk on. Conservatives can put families first by making sure there are jobs that can provide for families.

Shank brought up further analysis from the California Democratic primary results, mentioning that Hillary Clinton won 71% of the Asian-American vote, which was 12% of the state’s electorate.

“Clinton likely resonated with Asian American voters in part because she worked within cultural norms, giving ‘face,’ or respect, to their communities and working through what Chinese refer to as ‘guanxi,’ or connections. ‘We felt loyal to Hillary and guilty when she lost,’ says John Liu, New York’s first Asian American city councilman.”

“Chris Wang, director of the Queens Nan-shan Senior Center, which operates under the auspices of the Chinese-American Planning Council, says the center’s 4,000 naturalized citizen members don't vote based on a candidate’s platform as much as on whether ‘that candidate has spoken directly to them and recognized their validity as citizens.’”

If Shank is right, it’s refreshing to know that Asian-Americans respond well to retail politics. (Side question: Have Republicans been historically better than Democrats at retail politics or not?) The problem here is that because there is relatively very little community organization among Asian-Americans compared to other ethnicities, it might be seen as inefficient for any candidate or party to reach out to that community.

But one thing is for sure: there are a lot of Asian-American small business owners. And I’m not only talking about the specialty Asian grocery stores and Chinese restaurants and Sushi bars in small towns. There are small businesses like banks, insurance companies, and other service-oriented industries that cater to specific ethnic groups in large cities, like Los Angeles. (Take a drive down Olympic Boulevard, and look at the billboards advertising Korean personal injury lawyers.) The message to these small business owners has to be about “freedom”. Conservatives cherish the freedoms that Asian-Americans sought when they immigrated here, the freedom to start their own business without government getting in the way too much. Conservatives will fight for the freedoms to do what you want with most of your money, instead of liberals who want to raise the corporate income and self-employed income taxes. (If anybody wants to spread a pro-business message to these groups, the best GOTV operations I’ve seen have crossed business license lists with voter registration lists.)

The best observation that Shank provides is the irony that Asian-Americans do not want to participate in politics for overtly political reasons.

“There are more insidious psychological obstacles. Coming from nations where democratic engagement has been actively discouraged or eliminated, where politics has wrecked fortunes and ruined families, many Asian American voters remain reluctant to get involved.”

This is very true for the generation that immigrated here. But what about the 2nd and 3rd generation Americans of Asian descent? The two states where we see large groups of grown American-born citizens of Asian ancestry is Hawaii and California. I would say that some of them have decided to become involved because they have embraced their parents’ decision to assimilate in a political fashion. Others have decided to continue to not be involved because they have embraced their parents’ decision to only assimilate in an economic fashion. Shank mentions the uptick in Asian youth being involved in politics, but what is going to make them tick?

I mentioned in a previous post that we have to start identifying new voters who have registered this cycle and last cycle, Asian-Americans included. It is still a mystery to me as to how to get more Asian-Americans registered to vote. Maybe it will take a leader within that community to essentially go door-to-door to Asian businessmen and businesswomen to get people to sign up. Shank seemed impressed by the fact that Obama campaign “clearly recognizes the need to reach out to the Asian American community.” I visited his Asian-American website, and clicked on his Asian-American agenda document. It focused on education, the economy, health care, immigration, and protecting home ownership of all things. But once again I felt bothered.

When I ran for the state legislature two years ago, I met with a group that represented part of the Korean community. One of the members asked me straight up: “We don’t feel that you’re Korean enough. What are you going to do to ensure that you will be engaged in Korean issues?” Korean enough? Korean issues? Really? Something else that bothered me was a poll that we ran where we asked would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate if he were an Asian-American. The results: 70% no change, 5% less likely, and 25% more likely. 1 in 4 voters said that they would be more likely to vote for me just because of the way I looked. Unsurprisingly, nearly 80% of those who said “more likely” were self-identified as “somewhat liberal” to “very liberal.”

So I guess I’ll end where I started, with my peeve when it comes the intersection of race and politics. I understand that it’s a discussion that needs to be had. If there’s one thing that Asian-Americans want, it’s respect, and as Shank describes, a validation of their citizenship. I often tell folks that the reason I am a Republican is that the Left is interested in what I can contribute as a Korean-American or Asian-American; the Right is simply interested in what I can contribute as an American.

If we talk about family and freedom, and if we start working hard to identify voters, this is a voting bloc that we can win over. But it’s a voting bloc that would rather not be treated as a bloc.

Discussion and disagreement are always welcome.

Web Video Didn't Kill the TV Star

Brian Donahue — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:47:08 -0500

This is a different take on my Web video vs. TV post. This is a great conversation to have, particularly from Brian Donahue, one of the real leading lights of GOP advertising and author of the must-read 30or60 blog. I'll be traveling over the next few days, but I'll have a response to this and to Josh's piece. -Patrick

Recently, my friend and colleague Patrick Ruffini, whom I respect dearly, posted on the subject of ‘new media’ versus ‘traditional media.’ The subject is a new lightning rod for political marketers and advertisers – especially the ones that fall into the ‘new media’ camp.

Here is a third approach – one that addresses the values and weaknesses of both forms of media and how they intersect, compliment and supplement one another.

The bottom line is – comparing ‘traditional media’ vs. ‘new media’ is like comparing apples and oranges, they are not mutually exclusive mediums for advertising and carrying messages – but different vehicles, that target different audiences, with different creative formats – each working best within their own confines of delivery.

Allow me to examine and respond to several of Patrick’s points:

Unlike broadcast ads, web videos can move an edgier message

Web videos are a tried and true tool to move an edgy message, but not necessarily more so than broadcast spots. If the point is to be edgy for the sake of edgy – then yes there are a lot more edgy web videos out there. Some are smart and funny, others are dark and dramatic – done correctly, and they get a lot of views and thus a lot of play in the news media that follow such activity closely.

In terms of cost and backlash – broadcast creates more backlash and excitement within the audience it directly goes after. It is a direct communication with actual voters, who are actually making the decisions. The cost is more, because broadcasters rightly point out the greater amount of reach and frequency the ad is viewed vs. online. More eyeballs – more cost. Simple math.

These eyeballs belong to people who may not visit YouTube, may not closely follow blogs or not ordinarily read the newspaper. These are average people, carrying on their daily lives, who may vote in an election and who need to be reached with a message to persuade them to vote for or against a candidate. By far, the best way to reach them with a repetitive message is on TV (broadcast or cable) and on the radio.

Good digital advertising and messaging through web videos and other formats can also be effective, but for other reasons - different target demos and different outcomes – like rattling the echo chamber that dictates media stories. Web video delivery is not direct to a wider range of demos and the method for receiving the message is more deliberate –people often have to actively seek out the video to view it in order to be a recipient of the message.

If done properly, combining all elements of script, creativity and context, TV spots and web videos can both do this effectively. The famous Daisy Spot, the Willie Horton ad and the White Hands ad did this well through TV and so far The One has done this well through web video.

2. With the exception of a few spots, web video has “outstripped” TV advertising this year

I completely disagree with the point that web videos have been better than TV spots this cycle. While there are just as many bad TV spots as good TV spots out there, like in the digital world, the media world suffers from just as many hacks and wannabes. Many who call themselves media consultants usually offer cookie-cutter, old-recycled-junk at best, and truly horrible local-used-car-style commercials at worst.

The digital world suffers from more bad media and creative material because it grants more access and more platforms to anyone with a computer and a basic knowledge of a video program. I’ve viewed a tremendous amount of garbage on YouTube and would argue that there is a greater amount of it per capita than television ads.

TV ads serve a different role than web ads. Generically comparing McCain TV spots to McCain web ads is akin to comparing apples to oranges. Each is produced in a way to get the most out of their method of use.

Web videos are granted the free ability to be longer form, which creates value in telling a deeper story, drawing out a point with greater context and carrying out more complex humor and shock. Many take too long and never get watched all the way through. Others are so poorly edited they lose the viewer fast. And yet some are just so shocking and crazy they over shadow the message.

Web videos should be produced not as longer form, overly scripted TV spots, but rather as a different artistic expression – usually with a more unscripted and less formal appearance. Regurgitated and repackaged TV spots simply do not work well as effective web video.

While TV spots are limited to 30 and 60 second time frames and must work to make a point more quickly and succinctly than web videos, they tend to appeal to a wider range of demographics because of the reach and frequency associated with airing TV spots. There exists a greater emphasis on production value to keep in line with what the viewer is attuned to –when a viewer is watching a high production quality TV show they expect to see equivalent quality in advertising.

The only good TV ads we have seen this cycle might as well have been web video

Come on Ruffini! Celeb has gotten the play and the excitement because it was the first real attack spot and it brought a new issue into play that went largely untouched – the fake value of Obama’s celebrity like stature. This is not because it had some incredibly high production value (while I do agree it was well produced). The Chuck Norris ad was generally funny – many TV ads are generally funny – the Norris ad followed a more product-style advertising look than anything else.

As a media consultant, I would argue that both ads were created by smart and effective media people, who strived to create something that would get noticed and break through the clutter. I seriously doubt that they made a decision to actively follow a web video style. The bottom line: nothing new here – just good creativity.

4. It seems Obama’s camp is either: a.) using the two mediums to target two different demographics or b.) David Axelrod doesn’t know what he’s doing

One medium and vehicle approach is not necessarily better than the other. They are both done in a unique style that fits the outline of the medium itself. As much as ‘new media’ people hate to admit it, standards and definitions exist on the web, which is why the web is continuing to become mainstream and even dominant in some demographics.

You must also consider the fact that presidential campaigns are an anomaly to the typical political or issue campaign (See Josh Kahn’s post in this space). Presidential campaigns are still largely driven by earned media and the news press. All non-presidential campaigns are about direct messaging to likely voters. The direct appeal to the media is secondary. So naturally, entertaining the media plays an important role in this, and every, presidential election. It’s easier to do that with wittier more sophisticated media vehicles that will only be viewed by the eco chamber and intelligentsia.

Vying for the love and respect of the media class is a tough game where the most cynical and creative work for the sake of creativity wins. That’s why the ‘new media’ space loves web videos most – because they also appeal to their sense of intelligence and cynicism.

TV spots are the workhorses in a presidential campaign. They take center stage in congressional and statewide races. They dictate the tone and the issue matrix of an election. TV spots move numbers and drive favorables and unfavorables. Web videos barely accomplish any of these things. This is changing.

5. Dowd tells us that the effective ads are the ones that fed a story, the media already had that story, so in the end, ads don’t matter

Dowd is simply talking about the dynamics of a presidential election. Dynamics, which do not apply to the majority of political and issue elections. This concept is often lost on operatives. That is why the Republican win in 2004 became so dangerous: too many former Bush operatives were under the belief that all elections can be run like the last presidential.

Direct voter communication is the most effective way to reach and persuade voters. This is currently best done by TV commercials and direct mail. There is no doubt this will change – as more and more people spend greater time in front of a computer and spend less time in front of a TV their decision making habits will change. Product advertising has always been dictated by consumer habits… political advertising has always been dictated by voter habits.

ALL IN ALL

My view is that the TV ad vs. web video debate is pointless. Debating which message delivery vehicle is better and more effective will only place people into camps. These camps are what the current problem is with political advertising and marketing. You have media consultants competing with mail consultants competing with grass roots consultants now competing with digital media consultants. What are they competing for? – the almighty campaign budget.

This competition pins different advertising sectors against each other, forcing campaigns to make decisions based on what theory of effectiveness they subscribe to most. This places an emphasis on separated sub strategies for persuasion and messaging.

The most effective strategy is one that deploys a fully integrated advertising / marketing / messaging campaign that combines all of these delivery vehicles into one comprehensive plan. That is what we should be striving toward. Funding decisions for message delivery must be based on critical needs, desired outcomes and greatest return on investment.

Remember, as technology evolves, political advertisers will be forced to change. The Internet and TV will become one – and when that happens we will be forced to advertise in a hybrid of both forms.

The ideal future of campaigning will not pit these message delivery vehicles against one another, but rather combine them all into a comprehensive advertising strategy.

Brian Donahue blogs at 30or60.com

CO-SEN: Mark Udall getting hammered for skipping energy vote

Soren Dayton — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:27:16 -0500

Earlier, I wrote about how Steny Hoyer tried to give cover to Mark Udall for skipping the vote on the adjournment resolution in the House. Earlier, I had also argued that the whole #dontGo thing -- before it was a thing -- was a major strategic victory for the Congressional Republicans.

Well, the hammer is beginning to fall on Udall -- and hopefully others.

Today, Freedom's Watch dropped a web video and a robocall. First the video:

The robocall script is after the jump.

Hello, I’m calling from Freedom’s Watch with a Mark Udall vacation update.

Last week, Mark Udall promised to vote to keep Congress from going on vacation without passing a bill to lower gas prices.

Two days later, he broke that promise.

Congress voted to go on vacation without passing an energy bill.

And Mark Udall?

He was too busy hobnobbing it with his campaign fundraisers to even show up for the vote.

Now Congress is on a five-week vacation, and we’re still paying an arm-and-a-leg for gas.

Call Mark Udall at (303) 650 7820 and tell him we expect him to stay on the job and fight for lower gas prices and energy independence…

…Just like he promised he would.

Paid for by Freedom’s Watch. (202) 379 3742.

Great House GOP Press Conference on Energy

Matt Moon — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:05:58 -0500

Still live off of the House floor ...

Minority Whip Roy Blunt just finished a press conference with about a dozen other Republican members to explain the consensus of angst the American people have with the Democrat Congress on American energy policy.

My new friend Nick responded to my last post by showing me the plethora of local news coverage on the energy legislation protest. I admit that I now have egg on my face because there was obviously plenty of regular coverage; the real problem is that Republicans should take the time to be more creative about how to communicate this issue with local outlets. And creativity is exactly what I saw in this press conference.

Michael McCaul (R-TX 10) collected gas receipts from his constiuents from a recent trip back home, saying that the Democrat majority "cannot shut down the will of the American people." He showed a gas receipt from a constituent that had a note written on the back saying, "Nancy Pelosi, I used to be a Democrat!"

Pete Sessions (R-TX 32) held up a tire pump, calling it the Democrats' "new drilling platform."

The best stuff came from Mark Kirk (R-IL 10), a self-described moderate. I just finished a short one-on-one interview where he called on the Democrats to "expand the debate" because "the 'all of the above' strategy is the right strategy." Kirk gave a few other interesting pointers:

Congress voted to take a five-week vacation and will let important tax credits expire, risking more than 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment, including the production tax credit for renewable energy, the residential energy efficiency property credit, and the clean renewable energy bonds. Tax credits for purchasing hybrid vehicles are only applied to the first 60,000 vehicles of each manufacturer, so all tax breaks for hybrids will have expired by the end of 2008 because Congress is on vacation.

Sending this stuff to local outlets takes a little bit more planning than what I have seen the last 6 days, but this is exactly the type of stuff I have been looking for. Sure, it's a little bit more complicated to communicate to the heartland, but 6 days of "GOP-is-protesting" stories gets old. Repetitive messaging has its place. But for an issue as complicated and as important as energy, creative messaging, including the "gas receipts" from McCaul and the "clean energy credits" from Kirk, works well in the new media and the localized old media.

Can the House GOP continue its momentum? Yes, as long as they continue to be creative like they were today.

Windfall Profits Tax

Jon Henke — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:16:53 -0500

At the Heritage Foundry, Conn Carroll makes a great point...

Ranking all industries by profit margin, oil and gas production is 60th. That means there are 59 other industries that are more profitable than the oil industry.
Exxon Mobil already pays more taxes than the bottom 50% of taxpayers and the company invested a record $25 billion in capital and exploration spending this year.

Read the whole thing for more responses to Nancy Pelosi's questions for Republicans. Meanwhile, this letter by Don Boudreaux is also instructive...

Barack Obama wants to help consumers cope with high gasoline prices by giving consumers a $1,000 "emergency rebate"; he proposes to pay for this rebate by taxing oil-producers' "windfall profits" ...

Sen. Obama should learn arithmetic. Total profits of U.S. oil companies in 2007 were about $90 billion. If Uncle Sam took all of these profits and distributed them equally to all households in the U.S., each household would get $750. Note that this is ALL profit, not just that portion that Sen. Obama divines to be "windfall."

So suppose that the Senator determines (rather aggressively) that half of these profits are "windfall." That would mean that each household gets a mere $375. Even if Sen. Obama's plan excludes all households in the top half of the income distribution from receiving his "emergency rebate," his "windfall profits" tax would generate only enough funds to give each of the remaining households $750.

If you're in those other 59 higher-margin industries, get ready to chip in. Meanwhile, as Mike Turk wrote on Twitter today, it's funny how the politicians are happy to suggest a "windfall profit tax" on corporations who make billions, but those politicians rarely suggest a "windfall revenue refunds" to taxpayers from a government making trillions.

The Earned Media Failure of the GOP

Matt Moon — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:53:45 -0500

I'm sitting here live just off the House floor where GOP members are continuing their protests against the Democrat majority for refusing an up or down vote on producing more American energy, especially offshore. This seems more relevant, now that McCain and Obama have finished their tiff over inflating tires. Today, around a dozen members here today, including the Minority Whip, Roy Blunt. They sent around an open letter last week that called upon Pelosi and her followers to return:

"We think it is unconscionable that Congress has gone on vacation before we have addressed the high gas prices that are crippling our economy and hurting millions of families. We are asking that you reconvene the House from your five-week vacation and schedule a vote on legislation to increase American energy production. Let us be clear, we are not asking for a guaranteed outcome, just the chance to vote."

Great language, but it's not getting any local media coverage. Of course, CNN and MSNBC would rather cover live events from small towns for Obama. And Fox News is just going to be Fox News.

If we're ever going to start successfully building a GOP farm team, we have to start feeding stuff to local papers, radio talk shows, and TV stations. The fact is that the party leadership focuses too much about getting the right amount of coverage in the New York Times or on CNN's Situation Room. But the fact is that local media outlets are always clamoring for stories and are willing to eat anything they're fed. Plus, we can be more creative with local media, where we have to be careful with what we put out to national outlets.

Example ... In the 2004 Senate race in Alaska between Tony Knowles (D) and Lisa Murkowski (R), one of the best moves of the campaign came when Tony Knowles started claiming in the spring of that year that he could convince other Dems in the Senate to drill in ANWR. Murkowski replied back by publishing an open letter to Tony Knowles, inviting him to take up a desk in her Senate office and start working Democrat senators that summer before the election. It made Knowles look like a fool. Sure it didn't get press coverage in the Washington Post or MSNBC. But it was front-page, leading story stuff for the Anchroage Daily News and KTUU-NBC.

Our earned media failure isn't a failure on the national level; it's a failure on the local and state level. Too many members of Congress that are on our side have an adversarial relationship with local media. Let's make our gains in new media while also making sure that any national conservative movement, that identifies local issues and leaders, has relationships with local old media outlets as well.

Michael McCaul of the Texas 10th district is speaking now ... I'm about to step onto the floor to watch.

Web Videos Take Risks and TV Ads Are For Congressmen

Josh Kahn — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:54:33 -0500

Patrick is right, web ads have frequently been a lot more memorable than presidential TV ads this cycle and there are a couple of good reasons for it. The campaigns have been much more willing to take risks in web videos and fundamentally, television ads as a tactic are better suited to races further down the ballot.

TV ads also have to accomplish different tasks than a web ad. A web ad’s two key goals are to draw eyeballs (“go viral”) and influence the press, while TV ads are primarily about defining a candidate in the absence of other information. A voter who has met a candidate in person, heard about them from a trusted friend or read about them frequently in the news isn’t going to be nearly as influenced by a TV spot unless it includes radically new information.

This cycle we’ve seen great web videos and atrocious ones – but the successful ones have all been irreverent, “too long,” hokey or generally different from traditional spots. In other words, they take risks. It’s relatively easy to justify a risky web video because if no one watches you’re only out the cost of production. Screw up a TV ad though and you’ve flushed the entire cost of the ad buy. Even worse, if the ad really flops you’ve just paid money to drive your own numbers down.

The Huckabee and Richardson spots Patrick points to as examples of successful web video-like TV ads both came from long shot candidates. Neither campaign had much money or a realistic hope of winning so strategically taking a big risk made perfect sense. (Incidentally, Richardson’s ads weren’t that original, they look suspiciously similar to this very sucessful ’06 spot.)

Presidential races are also fundamentally different from all other races. They're the subject of a massive, overwhelming, stage-stealing deluge of information. In a Congressional race, it takes hundreds of impressions to build up anything more than a vague impression of the candidates. In a Presidential race, Paris Hilton cuts a fake ad spoofing the latest TV spot.

The presidential ads this cycle aren’t bad as congressional ads – Obama’s especially are quite strong – but they all use traditional TV spot “fill the information gap” tactics. That doesn’t mean their spots can’t be somewhat effective at pushing messages the press won’t cover (e.g. Tony Rezko, I’m going to keep beating on that until someone puts an ad buy behind it), but it does mean that there’s a much higher bar than a typical congressional race.

In the heavily saturated presidential general election environment, TV ads begin to fill the role of “super web ads” and the campaigns would be smart to start taking more risks with them (heavily focus grouped of course). Lately, the McCain campaign has been showing signs lately of doing exactly that. Here’s hoping they stick with it.

Live from the Guerrilla Congress!

Katherine Miller — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:37:55 -0500

A report about the activity happening on the floor of the House. - Jon Henke

For an hour and a half this morning, I was on the House floor watching the Guerrilla Congress in action. Unfortunately, I have no photos to show for it, as Blackberries, iPhones, and cellphones were all banned from the chamber. The representatives I heard speak this morning (sadly, ol' Marsha Blackburn was not among them, though I did see her there): Adam Putnam (Fla.), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Frank Wolf (Va.), Christopher Shays (Conn.), Patrick McHenry (N.C.), Judy Biggert (Ill.), and Rob Bishop (Ut.). I think the theme of what everyone spoke on can best be summed up by what Rep. Putnam reiterated twice: "When the next generation looks at the Middle East on the map, they should be able to say, 'What an interesting place,' not, 'We depend on them for our economic security.'" A lot more under the jump.

To get in, we went through the Cloak Room, which hilariously featured handbags and Blackberries literally piled on top of each other everywhere. Apparently (some in our party went on Monday, as well), there were a lot more people there -- almost all the seats on the floor and half of the gallery -- were filled with either staffers or people who were on tours. Since I had no writing tools or phone, I'm going off memory, so we're switching to bullet points:

The first and strongest standing ovation was at Virginia Foxx's declaration that ours is the greatest country in the world.
Foxx also made the comparison of the "drive smaller cars and wait for the wind" comment (which she has printed on a poster) to the Marie Antoinette "let them eat cake," which isn't actually legitimate.
Posters were popular, as were handouts -- apparently they're more organized now as the week has progressed. Scott Garrett had a whole series of posters which I couldn't see, but Patrick McHenry had the best one: an orange VW Bug with a windsail attached to it. They also had handouts today: a copy of the open letter to Nancy Pelosi, and H.R. 401: The "Enhancing Energy Independence Resolution."
They were serious about no cell phones; two AAs who were sitting next to me were told by a cop to take their phones outside. Without Blackberries, DC ceases to function.
Unrelated to the Blackberry stuff, Chris Shays gave that cop a high five one time when he went up the aisle.
Frank Wolf, who is my congressman, was by far the most fired up. He has a long history with trying to stop the genocide in Darfur; visibly outraged, in a way that silenced the room, he yelled about Cuba selling China drilling rights off the coast of Florida, as well as the Chinese denial of Joey Cheeks's visa. Wolf left straight after he spoke; his was definitely the most impassioned speech, largely specific to the Olympics beginning tomorrow.
To hear anybody, they had to yell. One speaker mentioned it was just like the 1850s in the House. I'm sure Judy Biggert and Scott Garrett had plenty of interesting, factually-based things to say, but I could barely hear them, and I wasn't even sitting that far back.
Shays sort of reiterated the ridiculous foreigners drilling into our resources by discussing Canadian natural gas drilling off the coast of Nova Scotia, which is then piped through Canada, and sold to the U.S.
Shays also made the point that he wanted Pelosi to come back and to have vote so they could actually have the debate that was going on today
McHenry was hilarious: "Nancy Pelosi said she wants to save the planet. She repeated it, 'I want to save the planet' -- she had to convince herself," and then he talked about her jet, and when she wanted a bigger one a few years ago. "Don't buy her book. Don't encourage her."
Rob Bishop was probably the best; not only was he also funny, he made an excellent point about American ingenuity (taking us through a lengthy timeline of American inventions), but also one about a French town that banned cars and will eventually face problems of horse manure and TB, relating that back to the turn of the century NYC, where officials welcomed cars -- the point being that looking to the past does nothing.

I think that's about everything -- totally a cool day.

Katherine Miller blogs daily at Right-Wing Vitriol.