Bear with me, this might cut a little close to the bone.
When I first came to Washington, DC, I roomed with a former top communicator at The White House who had just finished up a major position overseas. He was 31 and I was 23.
After talking with me about what I hoped to accomplish he gave me some free advice which I'll paraphrase, "Before you came to Washington, 50 percent of the people in this city hated you simply because you were a Republican. Of the remaining 50 percent, 25 percent of the people you will come to know will hate you because of something you'll say, do, or become. The other 25 percent is on your side. Understand that basic premise and you'll do just fine."
I've always thought of that advice as I've made my journey as an aggressive communicator in the House, Senate, and on the campaign trail. I've recently found his advice to ring true in the blogosphere and in the daily struggle of running a small business. In other words, that piece of advice seems to provide comfort in just about every facet of political life - where competition meets you at every corner.
These past few days have been reminders of that reality.
Two individuals who I have considered friends and colleagues whether they have or not, Erick Erickson and Michael Turk, have posted public mantras on why, essentially, "David All" is an over-zealous self-promoter with only one goal in mind: his own.
They rhetorically kick over just about every sand castle I've built over the past year. And they question my allegiance to the Republican Party. Another Redstate contributor has said as much via email and I'm sure others will surface publicly or privately.
More after the jump...
Truth be told, I am my company's only marketing division. And my company is my brand. If it's a crime to be available and accessible to reporters then I'm guilty of self-promotion. I live and die by the creative imagination and pen of others. And if I'm irrelevant to the discussion, I've lost the fight entirely. That's the business of PR -- even in the modern world.
But I won't address their personal attacks further. It saddens me that two professionals/colleagues would act in such a manner, but it's their choice. I continue to respect both individuals for their numerous contributions to the movement and the Republican Party. Best of luck to both moving forward.
I would, however, like to address the spark which ignited the larger issue at hand which is that of Ron Paul's supporters and Redstate's ban of them.
Turk sums up his loss of "what respect for me he had left" by noting that the straw which broke the camel's back was my defense of Ron Paul's supporters which he terms an, "angry, vocal minority."
Wired's Sarah Lai Stirland's post on the matter sums up the entire disagreement:
And [Erick] takes on Web 2.0 consultant David All, who he says is more infatuated with the tech-savviness of the supporters than the substance of their ideology.
But All made some interesting points, not all of which made their way into my story. The first was that shutting the commenters down might galvanize them against the mainstream Republicans, and that in an environment where races are so close, that's a risk that they can't afford.
His second point: "I can only hope that whoever our nominee is, that his supporters have that level of energy."
All sees Paul's supporters' activities as a form of 21st-century canvassing. These days, a lot of young people's only consistent communications medium is their mobile phone or the Internet. So that's where Paul's supporters are.
All and Erickson's fundamental disagreement is over who Paul's supporters really are. The answer seems to be that they're a wide conglomeration of independent-spirited characters who can't be categorized. (Apart from being libertarian.)
Erickson thinks that they're a human political cocktail of Code Pink activists and Neo Nazis, and he doesn't expect them to vote for anyone other than Paul.
All thinks that a lot of them are those who buy into Paul's message of limited government and fiscal responsibility.
First, let me clarify my position -- I am not a Ron Paul supporter just as I will not be supporting one Republican candidate over another. Instead, I will support our Party's nominee and will actively work to defeat Hillary in the modern world. Period.
Second, I am not a Libertarian. I am a Republican.
Both Erick and Turk use a number of analogies and examples to conclude that anyone that supports Ron Paul is either "Code Pink and Neo-Nazi lurkers" or "anti-Semitic, racist, white supremacist, black helicopter Republicans." Their conclusions could be true for at least some of the "fringe" support which Ron Paul's candidacy is attracting. I agree that there is no room in the Party for those kind of supporters.
I would never doubt that there are a few bad apples in Ron Paul's apple cart. In fact, I've personally worked on a number of campaigns and realize that you can't always control who will support your candidate. Riff-raff exists on every campaign, especially when it's only a click away.
Paul's campaign and vocal presence is largely Internet-based, as Howard Dean's was in 2004. When your support is decentralized, it is nearly impossible to corral and quantify that support. Therefore, each website publisher in this country, including this one, can tell you their ridiculously inappropriate "Ron Paul commenter/spammer" story. They exist. They support him. And they should stop.
But Ron Paul's supporters are not all bad apples and it's inappropriate and unhelpful to conclude as such. Paul's support is deeper in the mainstream than people give him credit for and is digging deeper every day.
Take for example The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder's comments earlier this month about Ron Paul's fundraising impact (emphasis mine):
Oh me of little faith. Ron Paul cannot be dismissed as a gadfly; the chance for him to outperform expectations rises exponentially with additional million dollars he raises. 5.08m is real money. There must be, within the Republican Party, a vein of anti-war libertarian sentiment. It is longer and deeper than many of us had suspected. The Paul movement is probably one part Buchanan bridage and one part fiscal hawk. It is clearly active in ways that most of us haven't adequately understood? Paul may be in a position to be a giant killer now. Imagine if he finishes second or third in New Hampshire ....
Let me repeat, Paul's support is probably "one part Buchanan brigade and one part fiscal hawk."
And in New Hampshire, a state which Paul hasn't actively campaigned in, he places fourth in a poll which was just released today by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College:
If the Republican party primary were being held today and you had to choose a Republican candidate, listen carefully to the candidates names and then tell me which candidate YOU would support.
* Mitt Romney 32%
* Rudy Giuliani 22%
* John McCain 15%
* Ron Paul 7%
* Mike Huckabee 6%
* Fred Thomson 5%
* Tom Tancredo 1%
* Sam Brownback 1%
* Duncan Hunter 1%
* Other 1%
* (VOL) None/ No answer/don't know 9%
Ron Paul is turning on people that have likely never been turned on to politics including young people. And regardless of what party they thought they belonged to, they are now supporting a Republican candidate.
Will we win them all to the Party regardless of who wins the nomination? No, just as we will not win every Democratic, Independent, or other party affiliation supporter that has been inspired by our other Republican nominees. And as I've noted above, nor do we want to win every supporter which is attracted to a candidate.
But think of it this way. Ronald Reagan inspired an entire segment of Democrats who lived in Macomb County, Michigan to become "Reagan Democrats." Just this past cycle on a campaign in Michigan that I was working on, we went after those same voters with a message that we thought could win their support. We knew a Republican had done it before and we were willing to give it our best effort because we knew that every vote mattered.
Regardless of which Republican emerges after the nomination process, they need as much support as they can get. That's going to take bridging some gaps based on issues.
As the National Republican Congressional Committee noted in its memo after a much closer than expected race in Massachusetts earlier this month, 2008 is going to be a "change" election. And right now, Ron Paul represents "change" more than any candidate. It is important for Republicans to understand how he's delivering that message, and not to dismiss it simply as the rantings of crazy people.
As I blogged in my original post on the matter, I feel that Redstate plays a strong, iconic role in the conservative blogosphere. For many, Redstate is the conservative blogosphere. By shutting off all Ron Paul comments/discussions they sent a very loud signal to all Ron Paul supporters -- even those that aren't crazy blog commenters and spammers -- that they were excluded from the discussion and were not wanted in the Republican Party.
I simply think a more diplomatic policy could have been applied, just as many traditional media outlets have put in place, to deal with the influx of aggressive online activity. Doing so would have been well understood.
To wrap this up let me say that no one who is a part of any establishment likes real and honest change, especially if you're not willing to embrace it. I have embraced it and I will continue to fight for the Republican Party the best way I know how - using the tools and tricks of the modern world - and whether they want my help or not.
Sure, it won't be easy. I know that the road ahead is long, lonely, and sometimes painful. But I find comfort knowing that I'll always have 25 percent behind me.
Revolution.














Comments
Well said.
I'm new to this site, and I just figured out you posted this before I wrote my comment on the Ron Paul post. I was too focused there and did not see this. Soo... that part where I said you were going "too easy on Erick" - Nevermind. But he still owes you an apology.
I'm only one voice, but count me as a new member of the "25%" at your back.
25%
Well put, it puts things in perspesctive in a common sense manner. Your mentor was pretty sharp.
You know everyone has an
You know everyone has an agenda. If you don't fit in it, whether long term or short term, your out on your own pal. Redstate wants to be influential, and at times there successes thus far get in the way of their strategy and sometimes thei egos may as well.Â
I don't blame them for banning Paulites, they are way over board, But sucker punching you, and acting like nothing they do is wrong, does not win them any fans, Â
 I am no RP fan, but it's trite to dismiss anyone who takes him seriously as a headline grabber. Â
Poo-throwing is not freedom of speech
Did you read any of the dozens of blogs and hundreds of comments that the Ronulans posted on redstate before they finally got tired of cleaning up after them? No?
Monkeys screeching and slinging poo in all directions are not practicing freedom of speech. When the average Ron Paul poster is indistinguishable from the average hard-core left-wing moonbat, it makes you question which side of the political aisle Ron Paul is getting most of his supporters from. And if you had actually read their new policy about Ron Paul supporters instead of just flaming them about it, you would have seen that users that have been there for more than 6 months are still welcome to post about Ron Paul, as are new users that post intelligently for a month and ask permission to post about Ron Paul. The ones being banned are the IQ 40 types that followed a link from a Ron Paul-supporting site that are trying to crap-flood the forum, and to those types, I gladly say: good riddance to bad rubbish.
How can you say that?
Poo-flinging is the most common sort of Ron Paul support I've seen on Conservative websites.
In order to keep these guys "in play" you simply have to accept that as a Nazi, Fascist, Hebrew brainwashed, Moron, and all around Idiot who doesn't UNDERSTAND the GENIUS that you aren't as smart as them. And they know best, and should therefore be fully allowed and ENCOURAGED to make decisions for you. You stupid Jew-lover.
They know best. They know how the Illuminati, along with the Elder Scrolls of Zion and the later formed Skull and Bones are forming a New World Order through the North American Free Trade Association; and how the numeroastrology formed around the order of the candidates poll numbers when filtered through a prism of the Astrology of the order of the planets clearly SHOWS that Ron Paul is the only possible candidate to SAVE THE WORLD... or something. And your lack of understanding SHOWS YOUR FASCISM, YOU NAZI PUKE... OR JEW... WHATEVER.
If you're unwilling to take needless slander and abuse from poo-flinging morons, then you simply don't LOVE AMERICA and the ONE LAST HOPE FOR EVERYONE... or something. Seriously I tried to take their random capitalizations, odd conspiracy links, racism, and jackassery and tie it into a cohesive post. I believe I've failed, but I'm not sure if it was due to my lack of skill, or the materials I was trying to build from.
It's hard to make a wall from runny flung poo. I'm just saying, building with it seems to be an exercise in futility. I wish you better luck than I had if you really plan on trying. Not so much because you deserve it, but because it won't matter, and you'll need more luck than exists to make this plan functional.Â
Go ahead and ban me from this site if need be, but realize this is how more than 25% of Conservatives see the "silenced" Ron Paul supporters. So now you have a choice. Allow me (as spokesperson for the Conservatives unbelieveably tired of rants like this) to continue posting and making odd random slanders of your reader. Or ban me with exactly the same logic and reasoning RedState used.
This is my first time here, but I'll occasionally resurface here, just to post idiocy and leave without ever responding... Just like a real Ron paul supporter.
Enjoy your decision.
Yes, I read the comments. Not a majority of monkeys.
Yes, I followed those comments for months. The more common, reasonable comments were basically ignored or purposefully misconstrued. The occasional over-the-top alarmist post, however, was pounced upon and received the fanning flames of dozens of angry, 'gloves-off' Red-staters.
Basically it was a self-fulfilling prophecy that the Ron Paul discussions would denigrate into chaos.
My personal opinion is that the hard-core, blinders-on, change-what-why? Red-staters caused caused said 'chaos', not the Paul supporters. They were *so* dismissive of any Ron Paul support – reasonable or not – that it created an atmosphere of fear, loathing, and intolerance. And when the occasional 'moonbat' stepped up to the plate, they tended to make such a hoopla of anything remotely off-beat that it distorted reality. Even in those instances, I think they *could* have had a reasonable discussion with the person instead of labeling them a 'moonbat' and shoving them out of the party.
Red State Fascists
Red State are still writing articles slamming and smearing Ron Paul supporters, while of course smearing the man himself, and then prohibiting them from defending themselves while the regulars on the site can't agree with each other stronly enough. What a joke.
They need to cut out all of the Ron Paul articles completely if they are going to ban discussion about him, er, I mean, ban positive discussion about him. They need to cut out the negative articles if they are only going to allow a one sided discussion. The regular internet clique on the site can still smear him and his supporters, pat each other on the back while doing it, and then call his supporters names in the comments. It's pretty sad.
This is exactly what I'm talking about
"When the average Ron Paul poster is indistinguishable from the average hard-core left-wing moonbat,"
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The clique on Red State sits there and makes comments like these kind and then wonder why Paul supporters are posting on the site. Buy a clue. Spewing crap like that provokes them, so they get banned, yet the provoking continues.
That doesn't sound "conservative" to me, it sounds like a bunch of internet noobs that are having a little too much fun with the anonymous nature of the Internet. It is cowardly to provoke people and then ban them for replying in overwhelming force, Red State couldn't handle the fire they stirred. If Red State's behavior is "conservative", i.e. banning people who disagree with you after you provoke them by calling them names and ridiculing them, then I'm proud not to be a part of it.
The reason they got "flooded" is because the RP Revolution is bigger than Red State, and Red State doesn't have the numbers to fight back. So they took their ball and went home.
A stirring finish.
Courage.Â
-------------Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
The simplest way to explain the behavior of RedState
is to assume that it doesn`t want to be controlled by a cabal of its enemies (to misquote Thomas ;)).
Actually, because RS is very tribal, it doesn`t even want to LISTEN to those who disagree with its hawkish, big government/big defense ways. That`s why RS management and members reflexively see those who are turned off with what the Bush administration has wrought as "liberal" enemies rather than really engaging with the critique. To listen might require too much introspection, which must be avoided at all costs.
As Lew Rockwell noted:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conservative-hoax.html
Further:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/two-brains.html
The simplest way to explain the behavior of RedState
is to assume that it doesn`t want to be controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
Actually, because it is very tribal, it doesn`t even want to LISTEN to those who disagree with its hawkish, big government/big defense ways. That`s why its management and members reflexively see those who are turned off with what thye have wrought as "liberals" rather than really engaging with the critique. To listen might require too much introspection, which must be avoided at all costs.
As Lew Rockwell noted:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conservative-hoax.html
Further:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/two-brains.html
The simplest way to explain the behavior of RedState
is to assume that it doesn`t want to be controlled by a cabal of its enemies (to misquote Thomas ;)).
Actually, because RS is very tribal, it doesn`t even want to LISTEN to those who disagree with its hawkish, big government/big defense ways. That`s why its management and members reflexively see those who are turned off with what the Bush administration has wrought as "liberal" enemies rather than really engaging with the critique. To listen might require too much introspection, which must be avoided at all costs.  Human nature.
As Lew Rockwell noted:<blockquote>"The conservatives ... want to evade responsibility for the results of the policies imposed by monsters that they themselves created. When the left does this, we know not to take it too seriously. If you give the state the right to expropriate all private property, you can't be too surprised when dictators take over.
"Similarly, when the whole of your intellectual enterprise has been wrapped up in celebrating the nation-state and its wars, condemning civil liberties, casting aspersions on religious liberty, and heralding the jail and the electric chair as the answer to all of society’s problems, you can't complain when your policies produce tin-pot despotic imperialists like Bush. You have no intellectual apparatus with which to beat them back.
"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America. "I'm speaking now of the variety of conservatism created by William Buckley, not the Old Right of Albert Jay Nock, John T. Flynn, Garett Garrett, H.L. Mencken, and company, though these people would have all rejected the name conservative as ridiculous. After Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR, what's to conserve of the government? The revolutionaries who tossed off a milder British rule would never have put up with it.
"For my part, I'm hoping that the whole conservative movement will go down in flames with the decline and fall of the Bush administration. The red-state fascists have had their day and instead of liberty, they gave us the most raw and stupid form of imperial big government one can imagine. They have given America a bad name around the world. They have bamboozled millions. They have looted and bankrupted the country. They have killed tens of thousands.
"If they don't crack up on their own, we must do what we can to discredit them and their ideology forever."</blockquote>http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conservative-hoax.html
Further:<blockquote>"Whereas the government is considered to be bubble-headed and ham-handed in domestic policy, in matters of foreign policy the government is suddenly imbued with virtuous traits such as courage. Taxes, in this case, are not a burden but the price we pay for civilization. The largest and most violent government program of all – namely war – is not an imposition with unintended consequences but an essential and praiseworthy effort at protection.
"I don't mean to pick on the right exclusively. The left often offers the inverse of this recommendation. They believe that the government can't but unleash Hell when it is waging war and spending on military machinery. But when it comes to domestic policy, they believe the same government can cure the sick, comfort the afflicted, teach the unlearned, and bring hope and happiness to all.
"Each side presumes that it potentially enjoys full control over the government it instructs to do this thing as versus that thing. What happens in real life, of course, is that the public sector – always and everywhere seeking more power – responds to the demands of both by granting each party's positive agenda while eschewing its negative one. Thus is the left given its welfare, and the right given its warfare, and we end up with a state that grows ever more vast and intrusive at home and abroad.
"What neither side understands is that the critique they offer of the programs they do not like applies also to the programs they do like. The same state that robs you and me, ties business in knots, and wrecks the schools also does the same – and worse – to countries that the US government invades. From the point of view of the taxed, the destination of the money doesn't matter; it is all taken by coercion and all of it saps the productive capacity of society. Similarly, the state that uses military power to impose its imperial will on foreign regimes – destroying property and lives, and making endless enemies – is the one the left proposes to put in charge of our economic lives. ...
"It is undeniable that the warfare state will not restrict itself to harming and bullying foreign peoples. It always and everywhere does the same to the domestic population. It occupies us, attacks our property, ferrets out political enemies, and wages low-intensity warfare against us."</blockquote>http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/two-brains.html
Apologies on the triple post
Apologies on the triple post - I got error messages on the first two and saw no sign they`d actually posted.
TT
I have disagree
Dear David,
I'm sorry to say that Turk raises a good point. You do seem to value selfpromotion over the needs of the party quite often. I understand that you have your own business and fiscal responsibilities, but you advertise yourself as someone working for the greater good of the GOP. Please step back and take their words to heart David.
Ron Paul supporters
I've always considered myself a Moderate Republican. I supported the first war in Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan and supported the initial phase of the war in Iraq.
And now I'm a Ron Paul supporter.
Now the question is "why"?
I supported this war, but I believe we won and completed out mission already. In my mind our mission was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and depose Saddam Hussein and make sure his military was destroyed. That's it.
Then let the Iraqis know if they try to pull any more BS in the future, we'd be back. However, we should have let them sort their internal affairs by themselves. Let them deal with internal power struggles and security. I bet there are a lot of Republicans that feel the same way I do. Leaving now that we won isn't losing. Leaving is saying we're not going to put up with their politicians summer vacation BS while our troops are in the field and 1000 year old religious conflict bs. That's where I think Bush got it wrong: Nation building.
And then there is the FISCAL side of it. Our burden is going to be $8000 per person for all of this? Trillions? Simply unbelieveable. No unfathomable.
Let's see. Would I rather have tax elimination and cuts and grow our economy? or support an Iraq democracy via imposing internal security?
I'd rather save that money and invest in our economy. I don't think that's a radical idea.
I consider myself a moderate in that I'm not a social conservative but a fiscal one. Greenspan calls himself a libertarian republican. Is he considered a crazy loon by Republicans? Of course not.
I think redstate needs to learn that not everyone in the republican party is a social conservative. And we go to war to mainly protect our strategic interests (oil) and security (Al Queda). But we are going way overboard financially in Iraq right now which serves no purpose that I can see. We won the damn war. We can go in there again no matter who takes power if we don't like their set up or policies.
Iran is not a threat because we can take out their nuclear facilities with an airstrike. And if we don't, Israel will! And if not have congress authorize airstrikes on Iran and Ron Paul WILL carry them out!
I can't find another candidate in the Republican party that doesn't think we spend too much in taxes to support this mess and who can see that we already won the war in Iraq, other than Ron Paul. If there is another, let me know!
People forget that Ron Paul can't be a dictator once in office. If Ron Paul wins, he doesn't just start dictating his agenda to Congress and they willfully obey. He can decrease our presence in the middle east and try to cut into departments that waste spending. He'd even make the dollar strong. How much does it stink that the Canadian LOON is worth more than our own dollar?
Red State, Ron Paul is not the anti-christ nor a wacko. He's the only candidate with convictions I can actually go back in his record and see and follow. A principled and not a wishy-washy, go with the wind, kind of candidate. That is refreshing with these candidates. I had hoped Senator Hagel of Nebraska would have joined the race as I might have supported him too since he also wants out of Iraq (he's not a loon too is he?).
Look, I think the right thing to do is let a few of us Ron Paul fans who ARE registered republicans on your site to discuss Ron paul in debate vs. shutting the place down to all of his supporters. However, if not, it's your decision. But David Ali is right, I think it does more harm than good imo.
-David Graner, Moderate Republican
Frightening
As a life-long Republican, the talk of the party not being interested in fringe support frightens me. I understand that along with a recent (think 12 years) centralization of power to the far-right, comes a certain amount of fear of any group that might usurp that power or alter the power hold of that group.
That being said, the purpose of "the party' is not to convene only like-minded individuals. There is in fact a particular advantage to having a group that believes firmly in a set of basic tenets, but disagrees on peripheral issues. This is advantageous because it casts the widest net of inclusion, which in turn means votes... and LETS BE REAL what "the PARTY'' needs next November is nothing more than votes.
Allowing discourse among the party--which has for so long been a cool machine of efficiency--to stagnate by deciding "who is more republican" will bring no positive result. If you really believe that Ron Paul is having a REAL deleterious effect on the party then back the candidate who is the most "republican" and get the word out on him. What we can't afford is to fight with one another while the other party unites.
Re: Light vs Darkness
Dr. Paul runs for We the People. He treated poor patients for free rather than take Medicare payments.
He returns political contributions received from corporations! His average donation is $40 per person. He raised $5 million in Q3 and is on tract to raise $3 million in October.
He declined his very lucrative Congressional pension, because he does not believe he has a right to grab part of your paycheck and you have no obligation to take care of his retirement. In 30 years he has never taken a single political junket. He has never done a single deal with a special interest group or corporation.
He will allow young people to opt out of Social Security. He knows young people will never enjoy the benefits of Social Security, so why tax them?
Now, here’s an honest politician with integrity. He is the lone Republican who opposed the war, when it was still only on the White House agenda, long before 9/11. He will bring our troops home and end the suffering in Iraq. A vote for Ron Paul will restore our image abroad.
His record takes one’s breath away. For thirty years he cast every one of his votes strictly in accordance with the Constitution.
Don’t think Republican vs Democrat. Think honesty, integrity, my future, my children’s future vs. political graft, special interests, lobbyists, 9$9 trillion Federal debt, incurring $500 billion in interest annually. The Iraq war will add another $2.4 trillion. It’s like light vs darkness. It’s an easy choice. Vote Ron Paul, it will change the country for ever, for the better.
Ego is an understatment
Calling David All a ego-manical self-promotion machine is like calling the sky blue. I was at an event recently with someone who had met him for the first time, and as we were leaving, the first comment made to me about the entire event dealt with his massive ego.  Just look at the name of his company. Not only did he name his company after himself instead of focusing on Republicans or technology, he pastes a big-ass "CONGRESSIONAL INTERNET ACE" quote on the homepage. Plenty of successful consultants have managed to build companies without trying to annoint themselves king of their field, or being a jackass in the process. David has done both.  But what's worse than his insane self-promotion is his lack of any substanative accomplishment, and the fact that he has no idea what he's doing. Those accomplishments he'll claim are just unoriginal rip-offs of other projects. TechRepublican? Yeah, I liked it when it was called TechPresident.  DomeNation? DiggNation. That now-defunct pile of trash not only brought unoriginality but blatant self promotion as well.Slatecard? ActBlue and RightRoots.Not only no new ideas, but not even new names.  Look at this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUTqYt-fnd4Was there any reason to make that aside from wanting to see himself on YouTube?  What about his question for the YouTube debate? Over-produced BS, where he calls himself "David All from Columbus, Ohio." Sorry, but doesn't he live in the DC area?  And the video where he all but cries about the Republican candidates not doing the YouTube debate is a classic.Auctioning off a spot at a training in the TechRepublican comments thread? Reaks of bad ego by making kids bow before you and your coveted spot you get as a trainer (gag), but also a cheap tool to try to get people commenting. Why don't you find a deserving person and help them go? That's what someone who actually wanted what's best for the Party would do.  Â
wet clothes
[url=http://ofngud.hostaim.com/ea5f28/woman-in-wet-clothing.html] woman in wet clothing [/url][url=http://ofngud.hostaim.com/ea5f28/girl-clothing-wet.html] girl clothing wet [/url]
Political connectivity
To make this site have a lot more stickiness, you could add community. I would like to communicate directly with some of the folks who have posted comments. It would enrich the dialogue.
Post new comment