One of the better speeches at the RightOnline Summit in Austin, Texas was given by Erick Erickson, the editor of the freshly designed and re-launched Redstate.com. (Looks good Erick.)

The thrust of Erick's speech (download as PDF) was simple: Stop being pundits and start being (online) activists. Let's dig in.

Erickson opened his remarks with the classic red meat which has helped brand Redstate as one of the top conservative outposts in the blogosphere:

There are people in this world who are morally and ideologically opposed to us. We call them the left. They are a group of people who want you to surrender your hard earned money so they can give it to someone else who did not earn it and probably would not need it, but for the their insistence on government dependence.

Their rhetoric is “hope and change.” You know, hope and change are always buzzwords in the revolution against freedom. The only change theyʼll offer is more government. The only choice theyʼll offer you is whether or not to abort your kids. The policies of the last eight years will be replaced by the failed policies of the last 100 years.

And like a modern general addressing his modern army in what Erick terms the "Freedom Revolution," he was precise and direct in how the activists in the room could make an immediate diference:

So you have a choice: get involved or not.

Go to RedState or one of the other sites out there. Start reading. Develop a feel for the community. Then start writing. Give us your thoughts on your local sheriff. Whatʼs he doing. Give us your thoughts on your state representative. Become the person others rely on for information.

Find what interests you. Start blogging about it. Cover the issue. Learn to do an open records act request or learn to read campaign disclosures or learn to do both. Know who you are up against. Be the person who raises the red flags. At least join the conversation. You cannot sit on the sidelines and expect victory.

You donʼt have to be the commander. You donʼt have to do it full time. Just be willing to lend a hand. Just be willing to stay informed. Just be willing to help others stay informed.

Simple, sound, easy, and helpful advice.

In a conclusion to his speech which caused an eruption of enthusiasm and clapping from the grand ballroom, Erick said: "Weʼve beaten [the left] before. We can do it again. And this time, we can do it online, where they think they are strongest."

The troops are ready to go and the generals are willing to lead. We will beat the left online. It is just a matter of time.

Revolution.

Erick Erickson of Redstate has a post up on the front-page which offers a glimpse at the next Redstate.com (version 3.0) which is said to launch in February.

Perhaps most interesting to the readers of this space, Erick is shifting the platform away from Drupal, an open-source platform, to a customized, proprietary solution. UPDATE: Erick tells me that it will be a custom CMS built in Django.

Excerpt:

In February, we will be launching RedState v.3.0 – a complete website overhaul that, instead of relying on third-party providers like Scoop or Drupal, will this time be our own specially-created platform designed to give us all the capabilities, power and independence to serve you, our readers with everything you want and deserve.

Here are just a few of the features that we'll be adding to our website – or bringing back by popular demand:

★ improved tools for state and local blogging
★ online activism channels
★ enhanced social networking
★ a conservative job/volunteer board
★ special tools for easier posting
★ tools for tracking new comments and total comments
★ user access to comments
★ ability to track recent activity on the site

Ah yeah... "Improved tools for state and local blogging..." and just in time for the 2008 election cycle. I likey.

So how are they going to pay for the additional software?

Erick asks the community to help pitch in $25,000 for the re-launch and looking at the comments, it looks like the community is doing just that.

On Monday, the conservative blog, Redstate, issued a blanket ban on all Ron Paul supporters' comments and diary entries.

Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters has the full story and weighs in calling the ban of Paul's supporters to question regardless of ideological differences:

It's their community, of course, and they set the rules. However, this doesn't hurt Paul's credibility as much as it does Redstate's. While Paul's supporters tend towards the annoying and repetitive, they have less impact because we can easily engage them and counter their arguments. Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.

I'm no Paul supporter by any means. However, Paul's statements can be addressed and rebutted fairly easily, at least those with which I strongly disagree. I don't fear the commenters nor the debate, even if it does grow tiresome at times. It certainly can't be any more tiresome than the S-CHIP debate, or the Iraq War debate, or the FISA debate -- and I'd have less sympathy for opponents on those issues than the people who support Ron Paul.

I agree with Captain Ed. Generally, Republicans need to welcome Ron Paul (and all others willing to wear a Republican banner) to the debate and the discussion. If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, we need him to actively endorse and support the winner so that his supporters will use their energy to defeat Hillary.

Personally, I recognize that Paul's support is very, very real, especially in the politics + tech sphere. He is the people-powered Howard Dean candidate of 2008 which I've been saying we need to "prove" the importance of an effective Internet strategy. He is that Revolution.

UPDATE 12:34 PM: Others covering this story:

* Kate Phillips of the New York Times' Caucus Blog.
* Josh Levy notes it in his Daily Digest at TechPresident.
* Jose Antonio Vargas of the Washington Post.
* Sarah Lai Stirland of Wired.

UPDATE 1:34 PM: Mike Krempasky, one of the co-founders of Redstate, points out in the comments of this thread that the ban was not a "blanket ban" as Captain Ed and I read it to be.

Semantics and interpretation are important, so here's the text of the entire Redstate post for you to decide for yourself:

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.

Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else.

P.S. Comments to this post are closed. Complaints may be directed to the contact form.

UPDATE 8:11 PM: OK, I'll respond. Redstate's Erick Erickson has drafted a 1,600 word argument against me, personally and professionally, on the premise that I'm a tech and PR guy, not an ideologue. Therefore, I should keep the blogging to the rest of the field.

This sums it up:

I think David is using our story to get himself some attention as a professional tech consultant on the right. David can ride our news into media punditry if he wants, he's good at it, but I think he needs to get a better grasp on the issues and ideology coming before the technology before going to Wired, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. The tech is just a tool in the strategic battle ground. Losing focus on the cause because of being enamored by the technology, is going to put David in bed with the holders of the coolest tech toy, whether that's Vis Numar on the left or the Ron Paul Stormfront advertisers on the fringe right, not the best ideas.

Sheesh. That's a lot of finger pointing.

I shouldn't have to, but let me explain why Redstate's actions were newsworthy on their own merits: Redstate has become iconic in many ways, especially on Capitol Hill. For many, including Democrats and PR professionals, it represents the "conservative blogosphere." Accurate or not, the brand has strength among influential people.

Erick understands and perpetuates the influence Redstate wields among politicos. In fact, as Erick told the National Journal for a cover story on blogs, “When [Democratic Senator Dick Durbin] wanted to reach out to the Right online, he came to RedState to do it.”

Reporters read blogs. Reporters that cover the tech + politics beat read TechRepublican. They also read TechPresident where my post was picked up this morning. All of the reporters I spoke with today also told me that dozens of Ron Paul supporters had personally emailed them yesterday to urge them to write about Redstate's comments policy. I didn't ask, but they probably read the Politico's story on Redstate's comments policy yesterday.

In short, news is news. And this was news, my friend.

And please read my post again from this morning. I never called to question Redstate's authority to set its own comment parameters to better regulate its community. (In fact, after reading some of the comments left on the blog, I understand why they needed to enforce some sort of policy to keep it above water.)

I simply blogged about Captain Ed's response to the comment ban and then agreed with Ed that this could dig in to the credibility of Redstate rather than that of Paul and that Redstate should have found a better balance to establish an appropriate comments policy.

I consider a few of the contributors to Redstate friends, and others colleagues. We've disagreed before. We disagree today. We probably will again another day. That's just the way it goes in the arena of ideas.

UPDATE 9 PM: Last update on this thread, on Ron Paul being a Republican, I asked him that question specifically during an episode of DomeNation. Agree with him or not, you can view his response at the three-minute mark:

UPDATE 11:12 PM: Liz Mair weighs in on this discussion.

UPDATE Oct. 25, 10:37 PM: I've posted a thorough response to some of the recent criticism I've taken with regard to this issue. Sarah Lai Stirland is still following the issue. Andrew Sullivan weighs in.

Our friends over at Redstate are doing something very... well... un-conservative, or at least it might seem that way at first glance.

They've invited Dick Durbin, a Democratic Senator, to post a guest blog on their site tomorrow morning and then follow-up the post with an online discussion at 6:30 PM ET with readers of the site.

The conversation seeks to get input (from both sides) about a broadband access bill which Durbin will pen later this year.

The Redstate contributor, Robert Bluey, writes:

I don't see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. President Bush in 2004 called for universal and affordable access to high-speed broadband. Many conservatives welcomed his goal as a way to spur innovation, new jobs and economic competitiveness.

It's refreshing to see Durbin reaching out to both sides of the aisle for input. At the very least, it's a smart communication strategy by his team to recognize that they can get more "bang for their buck" by reaching out to both sides for input, and it'll help his team push-back when the bill is released.

And Durbin will always be able to add one word to his forthcoming press releases and blog posts: "Bipartisan."

Frankly, I'd like to see more Republicans and conservatives step-up-the-plate and support broadband access measures. It's sad to think that many go without that which we all rely upon and utilize so much.