No Magic Internet Button for the GOP

The Washington Times ^ | January 18, 2009 | Andrew Breitbart

[St. Louis Conservative]

The last election cycle bore more online fruit for Democrats.

"Obama is really Howard Dean 2.0 when it comes to online fundraising," said Phil Tajitsu Nash, who runs Campaign Advantage, a company that makes Web sites and develops Internet strategies for candidates.

So it's understandable that Republicans are green with envy and scratching their heads wondering why the Internet works for Democrats but doesn't work for them. The simple answer:

There is no technology that can help overcome the left's current online dominance.

There is no wizard in Silicon Valley who can make things better.

There is no Joe Trippi who can take an obscure Republican and push him to victory using online tools past, present and future.

Facebook won't do it. Twitter won't do it. Countering Soros and MoveOn .org won't do it. And mimicking Kos and Arianna won't do it.

Sorry, Republicans, there is no magic Internet button.

The Democratic Party resonates on the Internet because it resonates in pop culture. The Democratic Party resonates in pop culture because it has been committed to dominating it for over a generation.

Democrats are celebrities, rock stars, magazine covers and stadium concerts. Republicans are a small list of famous people who have to make public excuses for their affiliation.

Democrats throw parties, get models to show up, and Red Bull and Stoli pick up the tab. Republicans feature a no-host bar hoping an astronaut from the Mercury mission stops by.

Democrats pull off a star-studded, entertainment-laden Obama acceptance speech at Invesco Field. Republicans get a black dude to wear red, white and blue and perform a 1985-era patriotic rap song dressed as Uncle Sam.

[DBrow]

“it's understandable that Republicans are green with envy and scratching their heads wondering why the Internet works for Democrats but doesn't work for them.”

Republicans don't use the Internets to launder illegal anonymous foreign contributions, so they will always be behind.

“We follow all the rules and laws and still fall behind”, said one spokesperson, who asked that her whines not be attributed to her.

[DeuceTraveler]

This is the largest mistake the GOP is making. They think that they lost because they did not organize. They lost because they have no defining message. Democrats are for Unions, Socialism, big government, wealth transfer to minorities, votes for illegal immigrants and criminals, and the homosexual agenda. Republicans say they are for the same things, just not as much.

[TheZMan]

And the funny thing is, I’ll take a subdued thought provoking meeting with a guy running for office over a star studded circle jerk any day of the week.

[org.whodat]

Sorry, Republicans, there is no magic Internet button.

Could start by undoing some of the foul-ups of the past 14 years. Such as halting building a private road for the former speakers private development. Just a starting point, there are a few laws that needs reversal.

[SuziQ]

Republicans don't use the Internets to launder illegal anonymous foreign contributions, so they will always be behind.

Precisely, and because Obama didn't take 'public money', the FEC is not required to audit his fundraising. Slick, huh?

[Dustbunny]

More Conservative Republicans would have won if any had actually run for office.

The 'GHOST REPUBLICANS' that we had elected prior to this election lost it for us all.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

I am not as pessimistic. How about some Internet wizards from, say, MIT? I would give them a careful listen.

[geologist]

It was an opportunity for the Middle Eastern Islamic countries to contribute huge money without disclosure. His vast amount of money came from other that the average American citizen. He is the front man for others.

Anyone that can push the Clintons aside has huge backing and power.

Money works ... if you have enough and spend it lavishly.

[Gaffer]

What part of “illegal foreign contributions” is it so hard to understand?

[Redgirl]

Obama got his message across with text messaging and a myspace page. He knew how to get the message to his base. And he wasn't confined to the same stringent $$ rules like McCain (including getting $$ from questionable foreign donors).
McCain had no defining message. I knew Obama’s “Yes We Can” and “Hope and Change”, what was McCain's?

I hate that Obama won, but he ran a better campaign.

[Trod Upon]

No point in worrying. The GOP is dead. Wait until the millions of illiterate illegal aliens are granted citizenship. Who do you think they’ll vote for? What kind of policies do you think they’ll favor? Protect yourself and your family, but forget about America—it’s passing into history before your eyes. Elections matter.

[Le Chien Rouge]

Democrats are celebrities, rock stars, magazine covers and stadium concerts........ ....We've become the American Idol nation full of narcissists pleading for their 15 minutes...

[Drew68]

what was McCain's?

"I don't know how to use the internet. I've never even sent e-mail!"

I guess McCain thought this was something to be proud of, something that would show us voters just how "conservative" he is 'cause everyone knows only liberals use the internet!

[BubbaBasher]

You can make all the excuses you want but it all comes down to the fact that the candidate SUCKED! The only time McCrazy’s fund raising went up was immediately after he named Sarah Palin for VP.

[torchthemummy]

Precisely, and because Obama didn't take 'public money', the FEC is not required to audit his fundraising. Slick, huh?

This is a key point. The GOP nominee in 2012 needs to promise to limit themselves to matching funds...and then reverse themselves just as Obama did. No matter how biased the press is they will not be able to completely ignore the fact that Obama surely could not protest since he did the same bait-and-switch in 2008. Of course I am expecting that funding laws for 2012 (even 20120) will change to the exclusive advantage of the Dems.

[torchthemummy]

Whoops...

...(even 2010)...

[ABQHispConservative]

I keep seeing these types of articles, but I don’t buy it. What beat us were three things: 1) an inept candidate; 2) money; and 3) moderates on our side.

This idea that the rats are better organized due to the net is merely them gloating. Both sides have a presence, it’s just that they took advantage of dirty money.

Maybe I’m being naive, but I think these stories are meant to get us doubting ourselves. I mean look at freerepublic.com. It doesn’t get the notoriety of Kos or the Hutchison post, and yet it has a strong presence.

[all the best]

You got it. Republicans just come across as stingy, mean-spirited Democrats. The Republican Party spends most of its effort promoting the Democrats and their agenda.
The Democrats propose a “generous” increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans either oppose an increase and opt for staying at the current level or counter with a more modest increase. The Democrats say that we need to increase the school lunch program by x million dollars. The Republicans answer by offering an increase of one third x. Democrats say that the government needs to spend a lot more subsidizing housing and Republicans say that the current level is adequate. Democrats say that more people should be made eligible and Republicans defend the status quo.

So the predictable dynamic is that the Democrats fight for an increase in spending for some government program and the Republicans either oppose any increase or counter with a proposal for more modest growth. What impression of the Republican Party does this give? What is the one principle that people are able to discern from Republicans’ policies as stated above? That the Republicans are cheap and uncaring. Some may manage to construe it as fiscal responsibility but what it comes down to is withholding funds from worthwhile programs. Thus ultimately withholding help from those who need it.

If the Republicans agree to spend two billion dollars on a program they are inherently saying that it is good and just and worthwhile. Why else would they agree to spend such a massive amount of money on it? If people who position themselves as fiscally responsible spend that kind of money, it has to be for something good. Something right. Something necessary. And here they cede the moral high ground to Democrats, liberals, leftists by validating their policies, programs and agenda. It’s Democrats who are fighting for all of these good and righteous schemes and the Republicans who are dragging their feet.

Every time Republicans say yes but not so much. They are saying that the Democrats are right and they, the Republicans, are cheap. The Democrats are looking out for the needy and the Republicans are looking out for the cheap and stingy. We are cheap! Hardly an inspiring philosophy. Hardly a winning strategy.
Today’s Republicans are all to the left of FDR. Even when we win we lose.

[MNnice]

Raise the voting age to 30 and the democrats would never win another election.

[adorno]

No Magic Internet Button for the GOP

Internet, newspapers, magazines, radio, or TV...

No matter what the medium, as long as it's easy to sell the ignorant and uneducated on promises which win votes, then, no republican message, even the right message won't get through.

If the masses were to be educated on the facts of government and on socialism versus capitalism, would they vote for socialism, even after knowing how destructive it is to people's lives?

So, perhaps the only way to win back the masses and the elections is to do as the democrats: make promises that you have no intention to keep and make sure that they're ignorant enough to buy those promises and lies. The democrats' messages can only work on the ignorant and the dumb.

The democrats have borrowed from communism and they will lie to the people in order to get into power. The ends justifies the means, and the democrats have been very successful at disguising their real intentions with the dressing up of their messages with they elaborate setups and the use of celebrities. To the dumb and the ignorant, when a celebrity is seen endorsing a message or a candidate, then, how can that celebrity be trying to mislead? People try to relate and too many begin to believe the crap out of Hollywood and from films and pretty soon you end up in an unreal world. That's what we're going to get in the next four years.

As far as the internet is concerned, it shouldn't be so hard to get the republican messages out there and it could easily become the prevalent message. We have the people that can convey the republican messages, and technologically, the internet doesn't favor one party over another.

[adorno]

I am not as pessimistic. How about some Internet wizards from, say, MIT? I would give them a careful listen.

There are many wizards out there who are not MIT trained. In fact, this site already has many members who are very capable of designing and coding the next great internet idea.

[SuziQ]

That supposed ignorance of the Internet by McCain, was a media LIE. He knows how to use the Internet, he just didn't use a computer keyboard, because of the injuries he suffered as a POW. He would have Cindy type responses to e-mails he received, and he used a PDA, extensively

These types of lies were gleefully recounted on shows like 'The Daily Show', and the 'Colbert Report', which sadly account for a lot of what younger folks get in the way of political reporting. So young people believed that tripe, and as a result, considered McCain to be some old out of touch coot.

But it just goes to show how pervasive media lies are, when conservatives start echoing them.

[WOSG]

“The GOP nominee in 2012 needs to promise to limit themselves to matching funds”

We should run 20 candidate who ALL take matching funds and spend it ALL on 24/7 revitalizing the Republican brand and exposing/attacking the Obama/Democrat record, instead of eachother.

Using taxpayers money to re-educate people against the Democrats - that is worth doing.

[polymuser]

What beat us were three things: 1) an inept candidate; 2) money; and 3) moderates on our side.

I will add, with great honor for his military service but as a gut-honest objective social observation, that he was old and crippled. Like Dole.

[Starfleet Command]

There are many wizards out there who are not MIT trained. In fact, this site already has many members who are very capable of designing and coding the next great internet idea.

[wildbill]

IMHO the problem isn’t with a lack of internet technology by the Pubbies. Technology and Internet fundraising methodoly is fungible and can be bought.

The difference is in the base and their internet capability and habits. The Republican base that is internet savvy and that use it habitually is not nearly as large as the youngsters 18-30 that went Democratic in overwhelming numbers.

[pabianice]

Next big attack on the U.S. after Obama does kissy-face with Hamas and other Islamonazis and watch public opinion change.

[sf4dubya]

I agree.

It doesn’t matter if the message is 100% in your face through every available channel, if the message itself stinks, then it isn’t going to win the GOP any votes.

Going to the Left clearly doesn’t work; McCain’s loss is evidence. I don’t understand why GOP leaders insist on appealing to the Left to this day.

[DeuceTraveler]

There were plenty of youngsters who went for Ron Paul. He had a very energetic and savvy base. He also had a strong, defined message. Instead we ended up with John McCain who changed his opinions often and couldn’t decide to go on the attack or defense.

Energize your base and they’ll do most of the campaigning for you. Since the Republican Party will not stand up for Conservatism, conservatives need to start leading the movement themselves.

Get involved in your local townhall meetings. Every local government has some forum of some kind. Give reasoned and logical discussions on why large government socialism fails. Use your charisma. Involve your friends. The leadership must come from the people, because our government officials refuse to show leadership themselves.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

I disagree with the premise that we need to have conservative pop stars and movie idols to win an election. We need (1) strong conservative principles and (2) a great candidate who believes in and embodies those principles who is youthful, optimistic and can deliver a great speech. David Cameron, the leader of the Tories in the UK is a very attractive candidate and might lead them to victory in the next election. Perhaps Sara Palin can be that candidate for us.

[ari-freedom]

and as a result, considered McCain to be some old out of touch coot.

but he was...he should have checked out freerepublic before signing off on the bailout and all those other ‘mavericky’ ideas

[Interesting Times]

I disagree with the premise that we need to have conservative pop stars and movie idols to win an election.

Me too, but that isn't what Breitbart said.

His premise is that we need to have conservative films, songs and legends to compete effectively in the culture war. And he's quite correct.