A Politician’s Quick And Dirty Guide To Social Media

Google added it’s new social network to the interwebs two weeks ago and I considered writing a post that addresses only Google Plus. Then, I reconsidered. Google + needs to be talked about in the context of everything else out there.

First, a couple overarching principles for every social network:

1. Don’t be a jerk. It should go without saying, and yet…
2. Pretend you’re talking to a person face to face.
3. Nothing can ever be taken back ever. It’s the internet.

One big mistake politicians make is ignoring social media entirely.
A good politician will recognize that most public relations now is done through social media. That is, communication from the pol to his constituents happens on a much greater scale and more quickly and directly via social media. Yes, phone calls, hand shakes and kissing babies still matters and it matters a lot. But the fact is, politics is a lot like church: most folks hear the pastor give the sermon and never interact with him. There are a few true believers in the Amen Pew and they talk to everyone. Social media reaches the Amen Pew. Why wouldn’t a politician have a communications strategy for these true believers (and skeptics)? It’s really short-sighted and yet, many politicians still regulate their social media staff to an after-thought.

Here’s the perspective you should have on Social Media from Gary Vaynerchuk:

My suggestion? Integrate social media with communications. In fact, a comms director who is social media ignorant shouldn’t be a communications director. In the political space, a comms director who doesn’t know the major new media players like bloggers (at whatever level the politician is at) shouldn’t be employed, either.

Social media and new media relations isn’t magical, but it requires work just like it requires work to form relationships with journalists. The lines are blurring and journalism has become more democratic and diverse. A blog can be far more influential to the type of people a politician wants to reach to influence who will then influence the people he wants influenced.

Now, to the social networks.

FACEBOOK
I’m starting with Facebook because right now, it’s the juggernaut. Here’s a couple of rules.

1. Only follow close personal friends and family on your Facebook account.
This is yours. If you’re not into social media, don’t sweat it. Just don’t do it. There is no harm to not having a personal Facebook account. (This will cause some social media folks to howl, by the way, but my rationale is this: there are so many other social networks with which to engage people. A politician needs to have his real life too. Keep your FB account that life.)

2. Set up a public page aka Fan Page.
If you want this to grow, you have to feed it. Facebook pages are not magical wonderlands where followers just sprout out of nothing. Even the biggest named person has to give something to get something. The Fan Page is a good place to put ALL press releases. It is a good place to get feedback on certain pieces of legislation. It’s a good place to explain your rationale for a decision you’ve made.

3. Interact there.
Facebook has some nice tools for social engagement. You can create events there and schedule them that will invite your fans. You can do nice targeted advertising. You can have more inclusive and cohesive conversations then say Twitter.

All this said, Facebook is my least favorite social media application. Why? They don’t let you easily export your data. It’s clunky. But everyone is there.

Good example on Facebook: Sarah Palin.

TWITTER

1. Be honest about your account.
That is, if you have your own Twitter account, fine, but run it yourself. Don’t know about Twitter and don’t care? That’s okay. A Twitter account can be run by your comms director or whomever you trust, but make clear that the account is being run by that person … or a person other than you. You can also name the account @JoePoliticsNews or some such. That way, people know it’s about you but not necessary from you.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas, for example, has a bunch of accounts. His staff runs one. He has his personal account (puppies!). And there’s an election news one, etc. If you don’t know about Twitter, or are a communications person, follow his accounts to get a feel for how a major politician can use Twitter to interact.

Another example is Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, New Jersey. He interacts. So does Representative Thad McCotter of Michigan. These guys use Twitter and talk to their constituents and anyone else who will listen. There are quite a few pols who do this well.

2. Either follow everyone or follow no one.
Either follow the world (highly recommended) or follow no one. I strongly advise against following porn stars, hookers and underage girls. (You’d think some things don’t need to be spelled out and yet they do.) Twitter clients allow for lists so a politician or his staff can follow journalists and influencers without offending their constituents by not following them. So, my ultimate recommendation is to follow everyone. Just because you follow them all doesn’t mean you have to pay attention to them all. It’s just polite to be friendly.

3. There’s no wrong way to tweet. Oh wait, yes there is..
Here’s some guidelines: Be friendly and helpful but not overly personal. Boundary issues? Twitter is not for you. Be honest and engaging. Every once in a while get into conversations with folks. I’ve asked Representatives and Senators questions and Twitter gives them a good forum to give unspun answers. Sick of the media twisting your words or meaning? Well, judiciously use twitter to tell people what’s up. If you are inauthentic, Twitter will reveal you. It is a social medium. It is also a really good way to provide information and to be a news stream. Use it!

Bad example: Anthony Weiner. Don’t be that guy. Please. Spare us all.

Google +

Intro: You’re asking, What the heck is Google + and why should I care? Google + is a brand new social network created by Google (duh). It is a hybrid of Twitter and Facebook in some ways and a completely new thing in others. Like Twitter as many people as want to can follow you — millions even. Like Facebook, you’re limited about who you can follow to 5,000 people. In addition, of those 5K people, you can organize these folks into circles. Just like real life, Google + allows you put people into categories and interact with them (and only them, if desired) in those circles.

Why do I love Google + for Politicians?

1. Google + lets you tailor messages to the people you want to reach.
Want to tell the whole world about your new legislation? Make that a “Public” message. Want to share a message with key activists, donors, etc? Create circles for them and communicate with them. Want to send out a press release? Create a circle for the press (I have one of about 500 people right now, myself and include bloggers in that circle, fyi) and send the press release that way. And guess what? Those people can communicate back with you easily.

2. Google + allows for this new thing called “Hangouts”.
Hangouts are like a Skype conversation but for up to (for now) 9 people. I say for now, because a business version of Google + is coming out and I’ll bet that they allow dozens if not hundreds of people on a Hangout. We’ll see. But for now, Hangouts would be a wonderful way for a politician to meet with his constituents without leaving the comfort of his office or home. You know those key activists you meet with weekly? How about having a Hangout? You know those donors in five different counties (states)? Meet in a Hangout. You know those key reporters who you want to talk to and don’t want to repeat yourself ten times? Have a Hangout and talk to them. Have a constituent group who is hopping mad about fill-in-the-blank and so much so you worry about your personal safety? Have a hangout and talk about it with people and be safe.

Details about a hangout. Google makes it so that whomever is talking has the camera on them. Anyone can share a YouTube. So, if you’re on the road and your campaign manager wants to show you the latest ad, he can. Links can be shared. The possibility for this tech and politicians is endless.

Here is Michael Dell in a Hangout. He plans to use them for customer service:

3. Google + allows for a great way to share extended thoughts.
More extensive than Twitter. Less static than Facebook. More privacy controls than all of the above. Google + has less limits and yet more controls. This is essential. Newt Gingrich has already had a hangout on Google +. Other politicians are jumping on and trying it out. Early adoption celebrities (who face many of the same security and need-to-connect-with-the-public issues) are really enjoying the medium.

All in all, though it’s early, I feel that Google + has the most to offer politicians. The short coming? While Facebook has 750 million people on it (600 million check it monthly anyway) and Twitter has around 60 million active users, Google + has probably around 15 million … after two weeks. It took Facebook and Twitter years to get that many folks. I predict serious growth right now. Google has 193 million users monthly (as of last November). That’s a lot of people. And even more use Google to search.

Google + integrates with other shared services as well. Unfortunately most government folks cannot use many of these tools, but for real life users they’re valuable and make Google products sticky.

There are other social media too.

Foursquare: Foursquare and Gowalla are location-based social media and useful for politicians who want to tell people where they are.

LinkedIn: Businesses and job seekers use LinkedIn. It’s the mature social network for business types. I haven’t seen a lot of political uses for it other than networking and following people important in the business world.

Are shaking hands, knocking on doors, kissing babies and taking pictures important? Yes. Absolutely. They’re essential especially for lesser known politicians.

Can social media make a huge different in a politician’s scope of influence, connection to constituents, and control of the message? Yes. A million times yes.

Whereas social media was a catch phrase a couple years ago, it’s real life, now. Companies are very effectively using Twitter, for example, to do consumer outreach and conduct customer service. Celebrities are very effectively using Fan groups on Facebook to give followers special deals.

There are so many innovative ways to use social media and yet, at its fundamental level, social media is all about a politician’s stock in trade: influence and talking to people.

Educate yourself. Need some help and training? Worried that the “social media expert” is hosing you? Email me at melissa.clouthier at gmail.com or call me at 713-306-8867.

Social media is a really fun, direct way to communicate from the comfort of your home and jammies. Why more politicians don’t embrace it, I don’t know. But it is a natural fit for the politics business and the innovations that are coming along will make it even easier to be more efficient with your politicking.

Posted in Nerd Stuff, Political Animals, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Aborting A Flawed Baby

Modern technology brings diagnoses earlier–even in the womb. In the U.S., that means that 90% of children with Down’s Syndrom are aborted thanks to amniocentesis. In this UK example, a child diagnosed via ultrasound with Spina Bifida was aborted [WARNING: this is very disturbing]. His mother’s experience is what follows:

Yet if making that choice was hard, the physical ordeal was only just beginning. At 18 weeks pregnant, I was too far gone for a surgical termination and would have to go through a labour and delivery, under the care of midwives at our local hospital.

The first step was to take the drug Mifepristone to block progesterone, a hormone vital to pregnancy. I swallowed the pill in a side room on the labour ward — the same room where I’d given birth to our younger daughter two years previously.

Over the two days that followed, I fought the urge to put my hands on my stomach when I felt the baby move. Knowing that he was slowly dying inside me was the very definition of hell.

After two days, I returned to the same room to take a second drug to induce labour.

What followed were the worst 16 hours of my life. They passed in a morphine-induced haze, but there was no dulling what was happening.

My baby was being forced into the world long before he could survive in it, and it felt unnatural — completely at odds with my instincts as a mother. My body seemed to be doing all it could to hold onto him, and the labour went on and on.

At one point, in the grips of what felt like a panic attack, I became hysterical. Gasping for breath and screaming, I demanded that Andrew tell me why we were doing this and why it was the right thing for our son.

What follows is her husband’s, her doctor’s, her family’s rationalization for aborting a baby that would have a difficult life.

Reading this sickens me. My own son was born severely premature and ended up with the diagnosis of autism. He was on medications, oxygen, etc. when he came home from the hospital four months later after surgeries and fears including blindness, palsy, mental retardation. We didn’t know what we’d end up with. For that matter, we still don’t know our son’s ultimate path.

You might think that makes me condemn this family for their decision to abort their baby. No. I’m too crushed to cast stones.

Their decision to abort is utterly, completely, and frightfully hopeless. There is no room for God. There is no room for hope. There is no room for the expansion of human frailty. And by frailty, I’m not talking about the disabled child, I’m talking about the parents–their selfishness, weakness, limitations of spirit. By aborting him, they’ll never fully know what they’re capable of as people.

I think about my own walk–parenting my son. The limitations, I can assure you, are mine, not his. My humor, my patience, my vision, my work-ethic are non-stop challenged and unfortunately, I fall short embarrassingly often.

Just when I think I’m going to lose it, there’s a break-through. I’ve had to expand beyond my pathetic, small, inwardness. My judgmental nature? Well, it’s still there, but the wings have been clipped. Cavalier condemnation, so easy for someone who has had the bramble-free path, that’s gone by the wayside, mostly. Thankfully.

My son loves professional wrestling. This family who aborted their son–what loves did they extinguish? What unique personality and hopes and dreams were killed when he died? And really, who are they to decide that this child’s future, as different as their own might be, is unworthy?

Parents who are able-bodied and minded project their own expectations for life on a disabled child. And while all parents do that with all their children, kids turn out to be their own people. They end up having their own hopes, dreams and ideas. The same is true for a disabled child.

How is it fair to take away that will from a child?

When we get pregnant, as ironic as it is, we relinquish control over our own lives and submit to the hopes and desires of this other life force. We spend the rest of our days negotiating this paradox. We expand our own world by making room for another person’s world. And we often do that by pruning parts of our world that we thought we needed to survive. We die a little so another can live and in the process, we live more.

As this family sees their able-bodied children grow up, they’ll see the fallacy of their thinking. I hope. It might be painful to see. Still, in front of them, if they have the eyes to see, they’ll witness a unique being straining to be his or her own person. They’ll realize how little control they have. They’ll realize that their own decision at the start most certainly began something that is now not theirs.

And for all their careful planning and protection, tragedy will strike. Evil befalls us all.

In some ways, I think abortion, just like the technology that prompted this family to abort their child, foists the illusion of control over life. As if by aborting the baby, the parent now has perfect control over her life. Life will be good, easier, better, more pleasant…guaranteed.

What if one of their children becomes paralyzed in a car accident (heaven forbid), for example? Is this child better off dead? And what do they tell this survivor about the worth and meaning of his life? How about people who sacrifice a limb for their brothers on the battlefield? Another meaningless life? How about the elderly parent with full faculties but incapacitated due to ALS or some other degenerative disease?

What life is worth living and who gets to decide this for someone else? Do these parents feel comfortable with their children making the decision to “abort” them when they reach an age where they’re no longer deemed useful…to the children? Maybe their children will project their ideas about living with deafness or blindness or incontinence or immobility or pain or paralysis and decide, prematurely, to end mom or dad’s life. Is their reasoning any different?

This callous disregard for the imperfect life rests on the premise that there’s a perfect life. Anyone who has done much living knows that’s not true. There are many shades of gray on the scale of life and value.

That’s why life, all life, must be honored and protected. That’s why we’re so careful about meting out justice. Life is valuable. To snuff it out is to end a potentiality and no one can know where a life will go or what an individual’s purpose on this earth is.

The family that aborted their eighteen-week gestated baby were surrounded by friends, family, doctors who all advised them to abort. This wasn’t just an individual or family decision, it was a societal one.

What have we become that this decision was encouraged?

That’s a question for another post. Today, it’s enough to grieve for the life of a boy with Spina Bifada who was killed inside the womb “for his own good.” It is a tragedy of epic and personal proportions. Who knows who the world is missing because he’s not here.

George. His name is George.

Posted in Abortion, Corrupted Culture | 2 Comments »

Facts About Craigslist | ThePajamaPundit.com

div class=Amp_Content_Outer_Bookmarkdiv class=Amp_Bookmark_LinkURL: nbsp;a rel=clipsource target=_blank title=http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2010/07/facts-about-craigslist.html href=http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2010/07/facts-about-craigslist.htmlhttp://www.thepajamapundit.com/2010/07/facts-about-crai…/a/div/divdiv class=Amp_Commentary_Wrapdiv class=Amp_Post_TextpGood facts. Also, PajamaPundit has a very nice blog layout. Like it!/p/div/divdiv class=Amp_LinkSee this Amp at a href=http://bit.ly/bp0oLthttp://bit.ly/bp0oLt/a/divbr/

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Is The Tea Party Dead? Moving Beyond Adding To The Tea Party Movement: Here’s How

When another inevitable tea party break-up happened in my home town of Houston, the derivative group–a fine field of motivated folks–discussed their alternatives. We talked about branding. I suggested that they don’t use the words “Tea Party” at all, but instead become a mission-focused organization. They did just that and currently fight corruption in local elections.

That seems to be the future of the Tea Party movement ultimately–breaking down into activist organizations either locally or nationally to fulfill a certain purpose. Some of those involved have jumped into the Republican organization with the goal of transforming it to a small-government, fiscally conservative party again. Others have decided to become watchdogs of their local school boards. Still others have organized Get Out The Vote efforts.

There’s a lot of work to do.

Today, RedState’s Erick Erickson has decided to leave the Tea Party movement behind–to move beyond it. He alludes to the Tea Party movement disintegrating into sects like churches.

The last straw? This:

Then last week, in what everyone would have thought was a joke had it happened on April Fools Day, a bunch of tea parties, or at least one saying it was doing it for more, put out a press release announcing the birth of the National Tea Party Federation, which is not an organization, not a structure, not a new set of leaders, but an evolution of alliances of 19 tea party organizations and a handful of other groups, except for the Tea Party Patriots, which has worked overtime to be simply a volunteer group of concerned activists who neither get paid nor make money. Yeah, I have a soft spot for Tea Party Patriots living up to their ideal.

Most of us can sit back and ask one simple question: What the heck happened?

The tea party movement, one year later, is descending into a self-parody of infighting, money making, claims of national leadership, protests, unions, federations, amalgamations, etc. The groups have been so busy organizing themselves to distinguish themselves from each other that the core message is gone and media and left have been able to seize on the discord and paint a picture of the tea party movement as something other than it is and what we all know it to be — concerned Americans.

This has nothing at all to do with actual tea party activists. Let me be clear. I do not want to nor intend to slight the activists who care and show up with their hand painted signs, sometimes risking violence against themselves by the left and ridicule by the media.

But I have a simple message for them all — it is time to stop calling yourselves tea party activists and start calling yourselves concerned Americans.

The Tea Party Federation nonsense, and it is nonsense, bothered me too. Dan Riehl has touched on the problems. Here’s my take:

A small group of spokespeople would be the mainstream media’s dream come true. Only four or five “leaders” to undermine and smear? Awesome. Should one of these people have personal issues, misrepresent the movement, the media can smear the whole movement with the actions of one “hypocrite” (almost as bad a word as racist in the media world).

Why in heavens name would the Tea Party Federation group want to give the opposition ammo and line up to be shot?

Power. Money. Opportunism.

Yeah, that. There are bad actors in every movement and there are those kinds of folks in the Tea Party movement. And those folks are trying to get a federation of some kind to aggrandize themselves–TV appearances, business, whatever, under the pleasing call to put out a unified voice.

The Tea Party movement doesn’t need a spokesman. It needs concrete action.

And that is happening. Sure, there are protests and that serves a very good purpose: Demonstrating the sheer numbers of people fed up with big government. It also gives people an image to associate with an idea: millions of people wanting smaller government heartens those who fear that the government is going to take over everything. Cynicism is a democracy killer. The public image helps that.

Still, more needs to be done. If we want empty bloviating, we can turn on C-Span to watch the latest Senatorial panel. What we need is to fundamentally change some things.

Are you a Tea Party activist or leader wondering what to do? Here are some ideas:

1. Go after education reform. If it seems like we’re raising a bunch of no-mind Marxists, it’s because the curriculum overwhelmingly favors liberal ideology.

2. Watch the School Boards or better yet, run for them. These bastions of local politics are notoriously corrupt and misguided. Help find ways to cut costs, hold teachers accountable and increase parent involvement.

3. Become polling-place observers. How many wrong things happen at voting stations? Depends on the place. Go observe. Bring your camera. Bring your video camera. Catch the corruption on tape.

4. Get out the vote. Make sure you get people out to vote on important days. Today in Texas, for example, is run-off day. Make sure people vote.

5. Run for office. Don’t just stand there, do something. Sick of corrupt politicians? Replace them!

6. Blog. Oh, party operatives will hate you. Politicians may hate you. Heck, your brother might hate you. But since the MSM simply refuses, or because of funds, can’t write stories keeping officials accountable, bloggers can and do. And no, there are still not enough of them.

7. Inform: Email, Twitter, Facebook, lunch with the ladies: Preach the small government gospel to anyone who will listen. Hearts and minds need to be won to the cause and evangelism happens person to person.

8. Fundraise. Good politicians, efforts and ideas need money to transmit and promote them. One blogger friend of mine said that he was changing his focus from blogging to giving money to candidates. He was done screaming and wanted to put his money where his mouth is. Many people, formerly unwilling to give politically, see the consequences of staying out of the process and would donate to help others.

9. Become a teacher or college professor. Start inculcating the next generation with pro-democratic ideals and free thinking.

10. Be an individual success. Be a star at something, or if you already are a star, and then, on your big platform, come out of the small-government closet and trumpet your message of excellence. Explain why you succeeded. Explain why America is great. Lead by example. Do you know how many people are still afraid to verbalize their ideology for fear of being called stupid, racist, fill-in-the-blank evil? Yeah. Have courage and state the truth.

There are so many ways to make a difference. Many Tea Party organizations are doing many of these things. Most aren’t just showing up and complaining. Most are turning their words into action.

Do I think the time for the Tea Party is over? No. I’ll be at a Tea Party event this week and why not? It’s inspiring to be with like minded folks and to hear the stories of triumph. We need that.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. The Tea Party brand is strong still and will be a catalyst for greater things to come.

Posted in Political Animals, Tea Party | 11 Comments »

Exclusive: Herman Cain, Dark Horse?

Herman Cain knows how to give a great speech. He was also a delightful man to interview. Mr. Cain sat with Tabitha Hale and me for a few minutes. We had a great conversation on Saturday afternoon of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. He discusses God’s will for his life. He also talks about Republicans attracting people of color. He answers the question about whether racists dominate the Tea Party movement:

Posted in Conservatives, Political Animals, Racism, Republicans, Tea Party | 5 Comments »

What Was Wrong At The Southern Republican Leadership Conference?–UPDATED

What a weird conference. There. I said it. The Tea Party received the biggest cheers. The Republicans bashed their own party. Attendees were optimistic and cheerful. Politicians were purposeful and focused on 2010–a marked shift from the usual perspectives at SRLC which has been a conference that gives voters a first look at potential Presidential candidates. Ron Paul’s groupies were suitably worshipful and idealistic. Mitt Romney’s posse were mission-focuses as always. But something was off.

It wasn’t the city or weather. New Orleans was more beautiful than I have ever seen it and the weather was perfect. Food? A+. Gambling? I wouldn’t know, but people had fun. A shooting did clear a friend’s restaurant, though–so it’s the same old New Orleans we know and love.

It wasn’t the venue or organization which was okay–although the scheduling was unorthodox. The speakers didn’t get going until the afternoon every day while the delegates had various brunches. It made for an excellent blogging schedule.

What simmered below the surface of the event, though, made me uneasy. And it was who didn’t attend the event that concerned me.

Eventually, Mitt Romney is going to have to show up at an conference with other political contenders. Will he get more cheers than Newt or Sarah or Mike Pence or Rick Perry? I know he’s hoping to wait them all out, gather to himself a gagilliion dollars and be the presumptive nominee. That method worked in the past, will it work now?

Haley Barbour endorsed Charlie Crist who is miles behind Marco Rubio. Barbour was RNC chair during the 1994 revolution. Many of these old dogs are still around and enjoying power. They remember sweeping in and they don’t want to be swept out.

The recent arm wrestling being done by the NRSC and NRCC against the RNC might actually be wasted effort. If donors are by-passing all of them and funding the Rubios of the world, the party bosses might matter less even as the give full-throated endorsements to establishment candidates who have zero chance of getting elected.

One Republican said to me, “It’s like the Republicans are ten years behind the times. They’re looking for women candidates, when the voters are beyond that.”

What he meant was, the voters now, men and women, want a good candidate who follows, as Rick Perry mentioned, first principles. Gender matters little anymore. Beliefs matter most.

But first principles are inconvenient when an old-guard politician is trying to keep power and money. And so beneath a placid, optimist surface, there is struggling. The struggle would seem to be philosophical: big government Republicans against tax-assailing and small government conservatives with some Tea Party help.

Unfortunately, the struggle seems to be more base than that: who is going to man the ship when Republicans get power back in November? There are lots of Republicans angling for chairmanships and sweet deals and that seems to be a more important fight to them than fighting Democrats and a President who are trying to do to dismantle freedom and the American way.

Politics, like business, has many aging boomers who love their jobs. They don’t want to give them up. Terrified of becoming relics and irrelevant, they fight like badgers to hold on to personal power while not paying attention to what they’ll even be owning after they “win.” If the establishment Republicans rip the party apart, they may have power in a party that no longer matters. Do they recognize this reality?

Many of the old guard are suspicious of the Tea Partiers and conservatives in general. Cozying up with small government types, makes keeping a big government difficult.

Bottom line, the leadership of the party isn’t at the top anymore. The grassroots are leading, amoeba-like, toward a philosophical goal of smaller government, less taxation and more freedom. So far, no presumptive presidential candidate has taken on that mantal.

After the November mid-term elections, I expect a very wild presidential campaign. And while Mitt stuffed the ballot boxes at the Southern Republican Leadership Council, I don’t think his place as the new face of the GOP is anywhere near certain.

The Republican party will change, people will give them one last chance, because voters burned themselves with Ross Perot going third party. But if the party isn’t responsive to the base’s concern after the last two years, I’m afraid there will be a new party building and the old guard will be manning an empty ivory tower.

Tabitha Hale has more. She has a controversial take on the opening speaker who decided that the most important issue facing the nation is gay marriage.

Here are some interviews I conducted at SRLC:

Texas Governor Rick Perry Talks Texas….And A National Run? Also here.

Ted Cruz, former Texas Solicitor General who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court (and won) discusses the possible legal approaches to get rid of Obamacare. Also here.

A great Republican running against Deborah Wasserman-Schultz: Learn about Brian Reilly here.

I also got to spend 10 minutes with Herman Cain. That video is still loading, but I’ll add it to the cue.

UPDATED:

Liza over at Culture Kitchen gives me a back handed compliment and then dismisses a Rick Perry run for President because of his secession hyperbole while extolling Mitt Romney.

One word: Jobs

Texas has them. No other state comes close.

One phrase: It’s the economy stupid.

Rick Perry gets that, the Democrats don’t.

Now, Perry may have no chance to get elected, I don’t know. But please let’s not pretend that Romney doesn’t have baggage.

Can you say RomneyCare? And much as it pains me, his religion will still be a stopper for many people.

The press likes Romney way too much. Remember how they loved McCain? Yeah.

Posted in Conservatives, Moderates, Political Animals, Republicans, Sarah Palin, Tea Party | 16 Comments »

Brian Reilly Runs For Democrat Deborah Wasserman Schultz’s Seat

Wasserman-Schultz must go down.
Brian Reilly: Another GOP Up And Comer
Uploaded by melissaclouthier. – Watch the latest news videos.“>Brian Reilly spent a few moments to talk to me at the SRLC about the Florida race. He’s a good candidate in a winnable district. Like so many young gun conservatives I’ve met, he just needs money and optimism:

Posted in Republicans | 2 Comments »

New Venture

Hi Dear Readers!

I’m really excited to share a new venture with you. Over the weekend, Bill Dupray, Clyde Middleton and I rolled our blogging into one site called LibertyPundits.net. It’s a new kind of site which will include everything from politics to culture to religion to Tea Party news. Everything!

I hope you’ll follow my work over there. It’s going to be bigger and better than anything I could ever do alone. And I’ll highlight some posts in my Twitter feed–just to make it easier.

So, if you’re a blogger, I’d really appreciate a link to the site. We’re still working on our blogroll–it will be a very interesting way to do it. If you’re included, I think you’ll really like it.

Anyway, my website will now be a home where all my work will be fed through it. So, you’ll see the podcasts, posts and other content I create here, still, but it will look different once the site is redesigned.

Thanks everyone!

Melissa

Posted in Blogging | 6 Comments »

RNC Chairman Steele: It’s Partly Racism

RNC Chairman says the attacks he’s receiving are partly racism and that blacks have a smaller margin of error. I’d say that’s true for some few people, just as it’s true for some small segments who have disliked Obama from the beginning. Mostly though, it’s sore-loserism and establishment-ism and power-ism. You know, those “isms” that define Washington, D.C.

Here’s the video of the Chairman’s comments.

How about this for a theory?

1. Establishment Republicans see their power dwindling and they want to control the money.

2. The Crossroads business was hatched before last week when operatives from within this new money-seeking organization denounced their competition, the RNC–these people are going after the same dollars after all.

3. Republicans angry at Steele for saying the truth, that he’s not sure they’re ready to take the helm back, decided to gun for his demise.

You know, people are so sick of the Republicans. These guys demonstrated a frustrating inability to enact measures to trim the government’s power when they were in power.

I see nearly zero reason to believe that they govern much differently once back in power. For months, they fought the influence of the Tea Party movement and even now, some establishment candidates grit their teeth about this growing movement. They have a vision for Republicans in America–it’s big government, big business, big power.

Now, some have seen religion. They are terrified and want to get re-elected. But most who face primary challenges seem offended that they have to go through such lowly politicking to do the job they feel entitled to do.

In addition, those forming the Crossroads group, seem to ignore how this looks to people who now pay attention. It looks like the same old D.C. power plays. It looks like division and pettiness. It looks like the Mitch McConnell-Bush wing of the Republican party doesn’t want to let go.

Guess what: they were voted out for a reason.

Now, a person reading this might construe me as some worshipful devoté of the RNC and its leadership. I’m not. I’m just an observer who doesn’t believe, for one instant, that this Crossroads group is anything but an organization grown and built to support the Republican D.C. establishment while Chairman Steele is trying to strike the balance between an old and new Republican party.

Many Republicans don’t want a new party. They don’t want a younger, more diverse and more fiscally conservative party. It does not serve THEM.

They want power. It’s naive to think anything else.

So is it racism? Maybe a little bit. But really, it’s just Republican politics as usual.

P.S. The Republicans outside the RNC are questioning the judgment of Chairman Steele, right? Well, I question their judgment dividing the leadership during a year when Republicans are sure to win big because the Democrats are even more horrible than Republicans. What sort of wisdom do they have? How smart is it to divide the party on the eve of a big win. Yeah. Typical Republicans: shooting themselves in the feet.

Posted in Political Animals, Racism, Republicans | 3 Comments »

Bad Numbers For Bad Democrats

Rasmussen’s recent poll should concern Democrats–if they hadn’t already enacted the single most transformational piece of legislation ever knowing full well that the American people hated it. But they made that decision knowing full well that their futures hung in the balance. Or maybe they didn’t care about the future because they had some other guarantees for other lobbying or ambassadorships or inside administration jobs to keep them in the manner to which they’re accustomed.

The numbers aren’t a joke though. From Rasmussen:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, up three points from last week, while 39% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent, up four points from the previous survey.

No, it’s not a joke.

But the joke may well be on the American people. I’m not sure the Democrats care about re-election.

Posted in Democrats | 2 Comments »