Henke on "want[ing] a community" but having "very little to say"

"Hypothesis: The Right has flocked to Twitter because they want a community, but have very little to say." - Jon Henke in a Twitter message on 2/24/09*

For those of you that don't know him, Jon Henke is a leading blogger in what he calls the "rightosphere." In 2006, Jon served as George Allen's netroots coordinator (I held the same position on Jim Webb's campaign). In 2007, he worked for Mitch McConnell as New Media Director in the U.S. Senate's Republican Communications Office. Jon is co-founder (with Soren Dayton and Patrick Ruffini) of The Next Right, "the place for wired activists to build a new Republican Party and conservative movement."

In contrast to what Jon Henke believes about "The Right," that it has "very little to say," here is what he wrote in May 2008 about the "leftosphere":

Meanwhile, the Leftosphere continues to have an impact, with the Leftroots effectively (and regularly) pressuring politicians and candidates to adopt the agenda they create and promote. So why - with very rare exceptions - can't the Rightosphere do that? Fundamentally, the Rightosphere can't do that (effectively) because the Right doesn't have the gravitational pull to draw candidates to its agenda. The Left has a well-organized blogosphere that can do three things for Progressive candidates:

1. Messaging - between Moveon.org, the blogs and the many issue-advocacy outfits, the Leftosphere has a very powerful communication mechanism for candidates and issues. They have messaging and distribution capacity and it is well-coordinated with advocacy and awareness elements of their coalition.
2. Money - the Presidential money is high-profile and not every candidate gets a lot of online money, but the Leftroots can move significant sums of money to the challengers that hit the right notes, make the right friends, and jump into the hot progressive issues. They have succeeded in tapping the long tail to move fundraising - and the financial incentive machine - outside of the establishment channels.
3. Mobilization - the Progressives are passionate, energized, over their ideas. They have a story they're excited about, they have effectively tied their stories together and they're tightly wedded to the (dangerous) tactic of populism. They're unified around that mission, so they can and do mobilize people. Again, that moves significant power outside the traditional channels.

The Leftroots can deliver messaging, money and mobilization, so Democratic candidates become path-dependent on them. They have sufficient power to move politicians to their ideas. The Right does not. Meanwhile, what is the Right passionate about right now? Not much.

No argument here. Nor do I disagree with Jon that, as he writes, to "build an online infrastructure as effective as the Leftosphere, the Right must find its own story to tell - an organic story, relevant to current grievances, with politically viable solutions - about which people can be passionate, around which a coalition can rally." Can the Right do this? Perhaps, Jon Henke believes, but only if "Republicans make real progress" on reforming themselves ("We abused the power we were given, and we should not be trusted with the majority again until we have taken steps to reform ourselves.")

Personally, I do not believe that Republicans - or its netroots activists, aka "the rightosphere" - will be able to compete in the battle of ideas until they do three things: 1) engage in a serious "after action report" of how their party (and, more broadly, their conservative ideology in just about every area) went astray the past 8 years (or possibly even since the "Gingrich Revolution" of 1994); 2) undertake the intellectual heavy lifting necessary to create a New Republican Party platform/ideology for the globalized, complex world of the early 21st century -- a platform/ideology that is relevant, serious, positive (as opposed to mindlessly reactionary on everything from health care to the environment), and appealing to broad swaths of America (e.g., not just in one particular region of the country); and 3) find appealing candidates - and writers, bloggers, intellectuals (where's William F. Buckley when they need him?) - to articulate the platform/ideolgoy of that New Republican Party. Until then, barring the complete collapse of the Democratic Party, it's not likely the Republican Party, or the "rightosphere," will see a significant resurgence.

By the way, the LAST thing Democrats, progressives, or liberals should conclude from this analysis - or any similar analysis - is that they can rest on their laurels and simply count on the Republican Party to continue self-immolating. To the contrary, Democrats must continually define and hone their own belief system, then put it into practice. My personal preference is for a strongly Progressive (not "liberal") Democratic Party that fights hard for working Americans; that works tirelessly to promote the common good ("the general welfare" as the Founding Fathers would say); that exemplifies effective, lean, and forward-thinking (broadly "Progressive") government; that acts as a counterweight to corporate power (Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting springs to mind); that strives to expand rights and opportunities ("establish justice," "secure the blessings of liberty"); and that acts strongly to correct market failures, of which there are many (e.g., environmental "externalities" like climate change). If Democrats do these things, and Republicans continue having "very little to say," we could see a long era of Progressivism in this country. If not, we could squander a historic opportunity to build a greater, "more perfect" America. Let's not squander that opportunity.

How's That Strategy Workin' Out for You, Eric?

Eric Cantor's brilliant strategy of saying "no" to everything Barack Obama proposes, of being hyperpartisan for the sake of hyperpartisanship, and of putting ideology over country is apparently not working out too well. Check out these poll results:

*By a 63%-22% margin, Americans approve of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President.

*By a 74%-20% margin, Americans say that "Barack Obama is trying to work with Republicans in Congress in order to get things done."

*Only 31% of Americans say that "Republicans in Congress are trying to work with Barack Obama in order to get things done." The remaining 57% don't think Republicans are working hard enough in that regard.

*77% of Americans are "optimistic...about the next four years with Barack Obama as President." Only 18% are "pessimistic."

*By a 65%-28% margin, Americans say that Barack Obama "has the same priorities for the country as you have."

*By a 77%-18% margin, Americans say that Barack Obama is "trying to bring about real change in the way things are done in Washington."

*By a 63%-29% margin, Americans believe that Congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package "mostly for political reasons."

Yeah, that strategy's working out reeeeeaaaaaal well. :)

P.S. Enjoy the fun video I found on YouTube. "Dear Eric, you're running with the wrong crowd." :)

With Democrats Like This....

who needs Republicans?

...I voted against this ban because I do not think it is government’s responsibility to police the relationship between a business that offers a product (a smoke filled restaurant) and a person who might want a product (a smoke free restaurant).

Oh, Albert, Albert, Albert...is this REALLY so difficult to understand? It is? OK, then, let me spell it out for you: this is about protecting restaurant EMPLOYEES from a powerful carcinogen, like asbestos or radon or whatever. Why is the government not "the only effective means to mediate such externalities" in this circumstance, just as in the case of the environment (where you believe, correctly, that the government SHOULD be involved)? Short answer: there's no significant difference; same reasoning, same conclusion.

Will Linda Smyth "Bite Her Head Off?"

Apparently, this thank you may have been premature.

What's particularly interesting about the votes by Smyth and Hudgins is that I-66 expansion has often been pitted as an "inner suburb" (e.g., Arlington) vs. "outer suburb" (or even, horror of horrors, "exurb") issue. In this case, however, the "outer suburb" people joined the closer-in folks in voting against widening I-66. So, despite our past differences, today I want to say THANK YOU to Linda Q. Smyth (and also to Cathy Hudgins) for voting "no" on this ill-advised idea.

Now, I see that the situation may have changed:

Sharon S. Bulova, chairwoman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, said that the county is strongly in favor of widening Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway and that the county's representatives to a regional panel have been told to change their votes on the issue.

[...]

The vote by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's Transportation Planning Board on Wednesday stripped the $75 million project from the region's transportation plan. The swing votes were cast by two Fairfax supervisors, Catherine M. Hudgins (D-Hunter Mill) and Linda Q. Smyth (D-Providence), who voted against the project. Because the panel's voting system is weighted by population, the project would not have been stopped if the Fairfax representatives had switched votes.

So, when I thanked Linda Smyth for her vote against widening I-66 inside the Beltway, it turns out it MAY have been premature. Today, following the Washington Post story, the question is, will Linda Smyth stick to her guns and stand up to orders from above? Back in May 2007, Smyth told the Washington Post, "I'm my own person. Gerry [Connolly] has never told me what to do, and he doesn't now. If he did, I'd bite off his head." Well, I hope that Linda Smyth meant it then, and I hope she does it now with a new Board of Supervisors chairman. The question is, will Linda Smyth "bite her head off" and stand up for what she thinks is right, or will she given in and do as she's been "told?" We'll find out soon enough.

Dick Saslaw Ignores Constitutents, Costs Virginians $15 Billion and 10,000 New Jobs

The Connection Newspapers (rightfully) blasts Sen. Dick Saslaw (DINO-Fairfax) in its editorial, Saslaw Casts Deciding Vote Against Energy Efficiency Bill.

Several environmental groups decry state senator and Democratic Majority leader Dick Saslaw’s decision to cast the deciding vote against a bill written to ensure more energy efficiency in Virginia.

The bill would have required utility companies to reduce their energy consumption 19 percent by 2025 and lead to a reduction in the monthly electric bills for most Virginia residents, according to the environmental groups.

"He has ignored the wants of his constituents and most of the people in Northern Virginia," said Allison Fisher, with Greater Washington Interfaith Power and Light, a group works with faith communities to combat global warming.

Saslaw did not respond to Connection Newspapers phone calls asking him to comment.

Well, fine, if Dick Saslaw won't respond to the media, perhaps the voters of his district will respond to HIM by calling his "constituent hotline" at (800) 889-0229 or emailing him at vasenate35@aol.com and letting him know that (note: talking points courtesy of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network - CCAN):

* The goals of Sen. Donald McEachin's bill SB1447 were recommended by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), an independent group that has studied how states all over America can save electricity.
* These goals were also recommended by the Governor's Commission on Climate Change as a way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions in Virginia.
* According to the ACEEE, the bill would have saved Virginia ratepayers $15 billion between now and 2025, and created 10,000 new jobs.
* Senator Saslaw heard from hundreds of constituents on this issue, in the form of handwritten letters, phone calls, emails, and personal visits. Instead of listening to his constituents, he chose to follow his biggest donor.
* In voting against this bill Sen. Saslaw went against his constituents, his party, and his state.

The bottom line is this: Dick Saslaw is good on some issues, but he's utterly abysmal on energy and the environment. Given the urgency of those issues to our economy, our national security, and our planet, Dick Saslaw needs to be primaried and defeated in 2011. Unless, of course, Saslaw gets with the 21st century, the science, and the sentiments of his district's voters before then. Don't hold your breath.

Virginia House Republicans: "Putting politics ahead of jobs"

The Roanoke Times hits it out of the ballpark this morning with its editorial, "Putting politics ahead of jobs" (subtitle: "Republicans in the House of Delegates care more about denying Democrats a victory than boosting the state's economy.") The entire editorial is worth reading, but here's one of my favorite parts:

...This time it is Republicans railing against tax breaks and investing in the private sector.

That's right; the party that thinks tax cuts fix every problem, the one that loves to hand out money to corporations, has all but killed these bills.

Why? Because House Republicans apparently dislike Democrats and anything green more than they dislike taxes and love corporate assistance.

Let's repeat: Virginia House Republicans "dislike Democrats and anything green more than they dislike taxes and love corporate assistance." I'd change that last part to "love corporate welfare," but other than that, this is a perfect summary of Virginia House of Delegates "conservatism," circa 2009, as practiced by the Jeff Fredericks of the world. Why would anyone support a party like this? Yes, that was a rhetorical question. :)

Sean Penn: "We've got to have equal rights for everyone"

Sean Penn: "Finally...for those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that way in support; we've got to have equal rights for everyone."

****begin snark**** I can't wait to hear what Bill O'Reilly has to say about those "commie, homo loving sons of guns." Heh. ****end snark****

Why Does Bill O'Reilly Hate Appalachia?

I thought Appalachia was what right wingers like to call the "REAL America." So, why does Bill O'Reilly hate Appalachia and its people - the people that Jim Webb writes about in "Born Fighting" - so much? Here is some of what O'Reilly had to say:

I submit to you that the culture in Appalachia harms the children almost beyond repair... There's really nothing we can do about it,” O'Reilly told Sawyer.

She had a different view, of course. She said, “The great opportunity is the information economy... These kids are as smart as the kids in India.”

“Sure,” O'Reilly agreed. “But their parents are screwed up. That's the thing... Kids get married at 16 and 17. Their parents are drunks. I'm generalizing now. (Gee, ya think?) There's a lot of meth. There's a lot of irresponsibility. There's fear to go. Look, if I'm born in Appalachia, the first chance I get, I go to Miami. Because that's where the jobs are. But they stay there. And the cycle of poverty for 200 years – boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And I don't want to sound hopeless about it but I think it IS hopeless.”

[...]

...“I gotta tell you, people have to help themselves, you know? They have to wise up and they have to see that there's a culture of poverty there, a culture of ignorance there. And you either leave or you try to improve it any way you can.”

Imagine if a Democrat or - gasp! - a "liberal" had said this? The boys (and they're mostly boys) at Faux News would be going NUTS, talking about how this PROVES they hate America, blah blah blah. So, what's the reaction when Bill O'Reilly stereotypes all parents in Appalachia as a bunch of irresponsible drunks, immersed in a "culture of ignorance?" {cue sound of crickets chirping...]

P.S. When is the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) leadership going to condemn Bill O'Reilly for slandering an important region of our Commonwealth?!? Imagine if Nancy Pelosi had said this; RPV chairman Jeff Frederick would be going nuts!

Decoupling Dominion Coming Closer?

Awesome news on the energy front, courtesy of Earth2Tech, Rep. Henry Waxman, and President Obama.

The most important provision in the stimulus package for promoting energy efficiency in the U.S. could be a piece of ambiguous language wrapped up in a section on state energy grants. A few sentences encourages states to consider a policy for utilities known as decoupling (though the stimulus text doesn’t name it specifically) in return for energy grants. Decoupling, a strategy that has proven successful at promoting energy efficiency in states like California, disconnects utilities’ sales from their profits, and thus encourages utilities to implement energy efficiency programs...

[...]

...While the language in the provision is open to interpretation and is just starting to be studied, Joe Fagan an attorney for the law firm Pillsbury, says that “decoupling is clearly the intent.” Fagan says the language is as strong as it could possibly be given the federal government doesn’t have authority to regulate state utilities’ prices and cost recovery.

So, could Dominion Power be faced with decoupling despite all its efforts to continue "business as usual" for the indefinite future? Let's hope so.

By the way, when I was out in California last week at Stanford, I caught a couple hours of this conference on "innovations in energy efficiency." From the looks of it, California is moving ahead rapidly on smart metering and other schemes to encourage energy efficiency, reduce people's energy bills, and slash carbon emissions. In contrast, Virginia's moving at a snail's pace. That needs to change.

h/t

Sane vs. Crazy Republican on the Stimulus Package

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: Sane Republican

...I think it's a terrific package. I think if you ask a thousand people for their opinion, what is their ideal stimulus package, you will have a thousand different answers. So everyone's is a little different. I think [Barack Obama]'s done a great job and I think California benefits tremendously from that $80 billion of tax benefits there, for around $35 billion.

Exactly! This package will help states like California - and Virginia - tremendously. What governor in his or her right mind would turn this down. Well, that brings us to...



Gov. Bobby Jindal: Crazy Republican

... Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we're going to end up having a permanent program?

And here's the problem. So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one's crystal clear, black and white letter law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. And so within three years the federal money's gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don't think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times. And what it shows is what we're going to do in the stimulus is we're going to look at every program, every dollar. If it makes sense for Louisiana, makes sense for our taxpayers, we'll use those programs and dollars. If it doesn't, like on Friday we said, "This doesn't make sense for us. This is not a good deal for us." It makes--my job is to represent Louisiana's taxpayers. Makes no sense for us to take temporary federal dollars and create permanent state obligations.

Yeah...great idea, turn down urgently needed money for your state because your right-wing ideology trumps your commonsense, let alone your concern for the people of your state (does Bobby Jindal have any at all?). Ah, "compassionate" conservatism. :)

UPDATE: For another sane Republican, see here as Charlie Crist says that supporting Barack Obama's stimulus package is "a matter of helping the people." Crist adds, " I think my obligation is in essence the CEO of the state, to do everything I can to help us get through this tough economy. Certainly this stimulus package, about $12.2 billion to Florida, will help Florida an awful lot."