The House adjourned this morning without considering energy legislation. Nancy Pelosi and company were quick to make an exit, turning off the lights and the microphones in their wake. But some House Republicans stayed on the floor. At 3:30pm, they're still on the floor staging what's being called an "uprising" and a "revolt."

The lights are off. The microphones are off. CSpan isn't taping it. Nancy Pelosi "sent Capitol Police to clear the press gallery [and] lock the doors" according to news on RedState, but "Reps. Bunt, Shadegg, and Hoekstra have been taking turns remaining with media in the gallery in order to keep it open."

This revolution is not being televised. But thanks to online communication we know about it. It's on blogs like RedState, it's on the Twitter feeds of Reps. Culberson, Boehner, and Hoekstra. And now it's spreading as one person brings it up to another. I just mentioned it to a non-political friend in Texas. Her response? "Wow. This is like old school politics. This is amazing!"

This revolution is not being televised, but who the hell cares? To borrow from Rep. Culberson's tweet this morning: "Here is a powerful use of social media - when they turn off the mike we can still communicate."

Yesterday was the only day I wished I lived in Minnesota. And that’s saying a lot: I complain about the bitter cold of North Carolina.

I sat in on the Heritage Bloggers’ Briefing to listen to Congresswoman Bachmann (R-MN) talk about energy solutions and her recent trip with Republican Leader John Boehner among others to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is, of course, more commonly known as ANWR or aw-that-place-with-the-cute-caribou-and-stuff.

I liked what Rep. Bachmann had to say.

• “Congress is not a brain trust” and does not need to create its own solution to every problem, chiefly because “when we [Congress] do meddle, when we do intervene, we usually muck it up.” The only role of Congress is to allow freedom in American energy production, and then the problem will fix itself.
• “The US is the only country in the world that has made it illegal to access our own energy.” We have more than 88 billion gallons of oil on the outer continental shelf alone, but we’ve made it illegal to tap into it. And Congressional Democrats want to sit on their hands and keep it that way.
• The area for drilling in ANWR is like “a postage stamp on a football field.” It’s 2000 acres in a 19-million acre refuge and those 2000 acres are pretty desolate and wildlife-free.

But I think there is a better way for Rep. Bachmann--and the others on the trip--to say all those things.

• Give me videos. Rep. Bachmann is a talented and engaging speaker, so she was able to explain what ANWR looked like. But imagine how much better it would be to watch a video shot by a member of Congress on the trip, narrating the scene. Most people assume ANWR is a pristine snowy wonderland of caribou and, uh, other wintery creatures. Rep. Bachmann said the area for drilling isn't. I think that would have an incredible effect on peoples' opinion. At the very least, it would change the argument from "save the caribou"/"nuke the caribou."
• Give me photos. Rep. Bachmann has a photo gallery on her site that includes photos from the ANWR trip. It's good, but there are no captions or explanations. Plus, a good number of photos are smiling almost touristy shots. ("Here we are in front of an airplane.") In an age of digital cameras and cheap memory cards, there's no excuse to not have tons of pics available.
• Give me live feeds. I perked up when I saw Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) twittering that he was getting ready for the ANWR trip. Why wasn't everyone doing that? Twittering, blogging, even recording a phone call and putting it up as a podcast--we live in a world of immediacy. No one is interested in what happened then; all anyone wants to know is what's happening now.

With energy, Republicans have a good message and a good issue. Now they just need to make sure their communications strategy--especially online--is on par.

The last panel I sat in on at RightOnline today was “Shaping the Future: Youth Politics and New Media.” Getting teens and twenty-somethings involved in politics is a challenge. But getting teens and twenty-somethings interested (and involved) in Republican politics and activism often seems to be a nearly impossible task. So, in other words, good luck to the panelists.

My kudos for best points go to Ethan Eilon, College Republicans executive director, and Soren Dayton, modern media and political consultant. Ethan explained how 18- to 25-year-olds have largely been untapped by campaigns because they’re tough to reach. Few in that age group (if any) have landlines and most don’t have the same address for more than six months. Without a phone number or address, these people are “invisible” to a campaign. But with the advent of the internet—and young people moving their lives online—there is finally an “efficient and consistent” way to reach them.

Soren continued on a message that I heard in several Friday panels: modern media (i.e. the web) has not changed the fundamentals of politics, just the medium. The internet is not the “silver bullet” to end problems with voter outreach—especially youth voter outreach. The rules of politics are still the same. You go out, you meet people, you talk to people, and hopefully you convince people to agree with you.

So what does that mean for the Republican battle to win back the youth vote?

The trick is not coding a killer Facebook app or producing a phenomenal YouTube video. Those things are necessary, but not sufficient to create a real youth movement. The real challenge is instead (1) to identify the issues most important to youth voters; (2) to craft a Republican message to respond to those issues and concerns; (3) to deliver that message in such a way it feels authentic and real--the trick to being successful online as David Almacy explained yesterday; and (4) to pass the finished product along to youth voters through the right online portals (social networks, blogs, etc.).

And if that doesn't help the Right "win online" then I don't know what else will.

Cross-posted to Real World Republicans.

Common knowledge—at least among web geek types—dictates that Republicans are behind on the internet. Or, more woefully, that Republicans are too old, too “hierarchical”, and/or too something to ever possibly understand the technology that is revolutionizing everything.

RightOnline has already greatly dispelled that perception.

I’ve been to three sessions so far: the opening discussion, David and Sendhil discussing Slatecard, and now Joe explaining how conservative organizations can use social networking. The audience is primarily political activists—a Texas-centric crowd (after all, we are in Austin)—and most are not familiar with the latest web 2.0 goodies. The Q+A section of the opening session included several minutes’ explanation of Twitter, a micro-blogging site that’s old news in the tech community.

But that doesn’t really matter. Even though people are not familiar with specific types of web technology, they know that the internet matters and they know that’s the new medium they need to master.

The power of this conference is that the panelists—at least the ones I’ve seen so far—have done an impressive job of making this intuitive in a way that builds on what has come before.

David Almacy in the opening panel (Welcome to Web 2.0): The internet allows people to disseminate information. He showed the group the White House Twitter account. It’s not associated with the government; it’s a private citizen utilizing White House RSS feeds. Web 1.0 put information up for public viewing. Web 2.0 has enabled people to compile, analyze, and mash up data from sources across the world.

David in his session (360 Integration): The internet has made the world “hyper-connected” and the most important thing to remember is that people will only “pay attention to you on their terms.” The same rules of classical political communication apply (clarify your message, your niche, and your audience), but you’re pushing it out through a different medium.

Joe in his session (Social Networking): Make sure the message is appropriate <i>to</i> the medium. It’s better to keep it short and engaging, especially when you’re using social networking sites. The bottom line: less is more. After all, we live in a world where people are required to know at least a bit about a lot of topics.

Republicans are not caught up yet. But we’re getting there and the progress is encouraging.

Joe and I attended a lunch-time discussion of the book Netroots Rising forthcoming from Nate Wilcox and Lowell Feld at the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet. Like the title would suggest, the book is about the up-turning of the traditional political order (top-down campaigns) for the tumultuous rabble-rousing democratic square of the blogosphere.

The event itself was a good cross-section of the people you'd hope to lure in with this topic--old and young, men and women, suits and jeans. Although I do strongly suspect Joe and I were among the few from the right side of the aisle. Not surprising for a book written by two Democratic consultants with an introduction from the DailyKos founder.

What I Didn't Know: Perhaps this is my own lack of schoolin', but I had never paid much attention to the foggy genesis of the "Netroots" movement. The first six-figure internet campaign was in 2002, a race for the Texas governorship. The 2004 campaigns of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark were early pioneers in harnessing the power of the internet--and the blogosphere. Clark's campaign "imploded" over this issue, while Dean's attempted an early in-house social networking system, much like the 2008 candidates are all using.

That means none of the 2008 candidates are doing anything "conceptually" new and different, as Wilcox and Feld were both quick to point out. (Which helps put their efforts into better context.) They're just utilizing more people who are more adept at using technology. And, one would presume, it's better technology, period. I've at least been playing with web design long enough to know the websites of today are much prettier and more powerful than the ones from four and six years ago.

What I Thought Was Useful: Political campaigns need to continue to figure out the best ways to integrate an organic grassroots online movement within the traditional campaign framework. I believe it was Wilcox who suggested that many politicians seem to be using the Netroots community without being in it. The example he used was of campaigns sending out blast emails--but the emails are written by staffers, not the politician. Internet technology is supposed to help people connect to other people. How truly and genuinely connected do we expect our politicians to be? Does it matter?

What I Didn't Agree With: There was, of course, a brief discussion of why Republicans seem to be lagging in their use of technology. One suggestion was that Republicans are inherently "hierarchical" older people. Since I don't consider myself hierarchical or older, I was confused. Especially because I wasn't quite sure what a hierarchical person would be like. Fond of fitting oneself into hierarchies?

Anyway, the explanation I like better is that the use of technology has been due to Party circumstances rather than personal shortcomings. Democrats were out of power and disenchanted with the party elite in the early 2000s; they were looking for new avenues to organize. In contrast, Republicans were riding a swell of victory. So now that the swell has crashed upon the shore, Republicans are scrambling to catch up. It makes sense. I think it matches reality, too.

What I'd Still Like to Know: A suggested 90% of blog readers are lurkers, people who read posts but never comment, never email, never take any action. Who are these unknown they? How do we reach out to them? How much do they have to offer? I'd bet it's a lot, and also I bet figuring out how to expand the "e-base" will be the next big thing.

By way of introduction, I'm interning for the David All Group this summer before I return to Duke University for my senior year. Yesterday I was part of a bloggers' conference call with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Ryan introduced his policy plan "A Roadmap for America's Future" two days ago to tackle the tax system, health insurance, and the impending entitlement crisis. I skimmed it, I mostly like it, and it's received a good deal of praise in the conservative blogosphere. Its main appeal—at least to me—is that it moves the debate on these issues to the right in anticipation of negotiating back to the center. And the solutions are new(-ish) so, as Ryan said, it should at least be helpful in an effort to get legislators to "move beyond rehashing the problem." Amen brother.

What I have found most interesting about this process, though, is Ryan's nice footwork with the media. He launched the plan with a Wall Street Journal op-ed: a solid column in a widely-read, highly-respected newspaper. Good play with the traditional media. The following day Ryan reached out to bloggers in a conference call. In that call, he referred to the website set up to showcase the "roadmap," a website to which most blog posts and online articles have linked.

So Ryan gets buzz created in on- and offline efforts. Plus he gets to present his undiluted message to anyone clicking on his site from links in blogs or articles, as well as anyone Googling after the Wall Street Journal piece. Well-played indeed.