At the request of Congressman @PeteHoekstra, I just called Speaker Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) and left a voicemail urging her to allow a vote on important energy legislation to help give America some relief at the pumps.

Naturally, I recorded the call using YouTube's quick capture:

For the record, this is the first time I've ever called a Congressional office (outside of working on the Hill).

Please call and do the same: 202-225-0100

Make sure you Tweet it, blog it, and post on YouTube if possible.

@EATerrell, @JMansour, and @AbbyAlger on Seesmic:

Part II of a III part series analyzing why MoveOn.org has been successful for the Left and what entities on the Right are doing to help counter that effort.

Ed. Disclosure: The organizations listed below are not listed in any particular order and I'm only focusing on a handful of the organizations. Indeed, there are other organizations which I've included as "Entities to Watch" at the end of this piece. From time to time, I may have worked or pitched business to some of these groups and know well some of the people involved within the organizations. If I should have included another organization, feel free to contact me at David.All AT TechRepublican DOT com and start the conversation.

Today's piece in the Washington Post regarding the search for GOP donors to find the one organization that will help the Right catch up to the Left is well-timed given the fact that today I'm taking a closer look at some of the players who are seeking to fill this void.

In my opinion, these are the groups that are extremely well-funded and are making a run at being the "MoveOn.org for the Right."

* Freedoms Watch [501(c)4] *

Given the amount of money behind the effort from a very small crew of Republicans, the next MoveOn for the Right could someday be Freedoms Watch (Resources: Washington Post profile, PolitickerME blog post).

I've termed Freedoms Watch the "bad boys of conservative politics" as a nod to Lee Atwater. Among other things, Atwater served as the Party's Chairman and was very much in touch with the establishment. From what I've seen, heard, and read about Freedoms Watch, they too are very much in-step with the GOP establishment.

Freedoms Watch has been playing a valuable role in Special Election races across the country -- airing ads that help draw a contrast on where the Democrat stands on the issues as counter to a Republican position.

For all of its early success (particularly helping ensure Congressman Bob Latta won his special election in Ohio-5 and now playing in a Louisiana Congressional race), every now and then something bubbles up about the operation that leads me to believe that they're still understandably figuring out the path.

Two examples include it's former CEO Bradley Blakeman resigning earlier this year and the alleged recent meta data gaffe. True or not, the meta data issue was brought to light by Democrats -- proof positive that Freedoms Watch is on their radar - perhaps a good sign.

Of note, Freedoms Watch has resources and lots of it. This gives them the luxury of both having a hip office downtown that compares to Google's (I've been to both) and continues to pick-up talented Republican political operatives like Carl Forti and Ed Patru who know exactly what they're doing behind the wheel of a massive political entity.

But oddly, it’s those same resources that could destroy the operation. At least that’s what I glean after reading Michael Luo’s piece earlier this month in the New York Times. I'd add that any massive organization which has been under media and Democratic scrutiny as intensely as Freedoms Watch has will understandably meet a few bumps along the road so I doubt this will cripple the entity.

Of course, I'd like to see Freedoms Watch engage the online space even more using modern campaign techniques like effectively building email lists and the drafting of clever email marketing campaigns. The top-down organization needs to level out and find its voice from within the community. Given the pool of talent leaving some of the Presidential campaigns, my guess is that they'll pick-up an A-list online political operative in the near future. Stay tuned.

* Coalition for a Conservative Majority [501(c)4] *

The Coalition for a Conservative Majority is being led by Ken Blackwell and was founded by Tom DeLay (Resources: Washington Times profile, PolitickerME blog post).

CCM is a 501(c)4 and its mission is to "provide American conservatives a new voice in public policy and politics by inspiring, identifying, organizing and training them to become directly engaged in American citizenship and become effective activists for conservative principles and ideas."

CCM's approach to organizing and deploying grassroots support for candidates is unique. Its primary goal is driving a conservative agenda through the House and Senate, and CCM does not run ads. As other groups raise funds to fight the air wars, CCM will provide troops on the ground trained in using political guerilla warfare tactics to drive earned media, voter education, and outreach in their strategic media markets.

Since January, CCM has opened up chapters in the following targeted media markets: Columbus, Houston, Denver, Colorado Springs, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, with chapters opening in Scranton and Pittsburgh after the PA primary.

Like Freedoms Watch, another sign of CCM's success is what the Democrats are saying. Donna Brazile recently sent out the third DCCC email attacking CCM as one of "two high-profile organizations at the center of the GOP's sinister strategy" (Freedoms Watch was the second).

As a hat-tip to their willingness to engage the modern world, Ken and Tom helped announce the organization at the Conservative bloggers briefing which Joe covered in this space in November. That's a good start.

The team behind CCM from the top to the bottom is very good. They "get it," have a proven track-record of results, and are quietly organizing and making a difference in campaigns.

* American Future Fund [501(c)4] *

The American Future Fund "operates as a 501(c)(4) and was formed to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint to have a mechanism to communicate and advocate on the issues that most interest and concern them. Conservative and free market principles will be under direct attack in America. In light of that, it is imperative there be a voice for conservative principles that sustains free market ideals focused on bolstering America's global competitiveness across the country."

Admittedly, it is this organization that I know the least about other than what I’ve found on their website and in the media.

AFF emerged on the scene in March in support of U.S. Senator Norm Coleman through this TV ad. I don't personally know the folks behind AFF other than the piece I've read on them in the Washington Post which alerted me about their efforts in Minnesota. This sentence from that article leads me to believe that the effort is just getting started but will likely continue to make a difference: "[AFF is] a group with ties to several high-profile Republican consultants."

Today's Washington Post story quotes Phillip A. Musser, a Republican consultant for the organization as saying, "The soft-money landscape has changed. There are a lot of organizations interested in taking on various slivers of this election, but nothing has coalesced around the presidential contest in the way we saw in 2004."

We'll keep an eye on the effort and add more as we find it.

* Club for Growth [501(c)4 & PAC] *

The Club For Growth, to my knowledge, was one of the first to emerge in early 2000 as an entirely organic defined political entity. Its wikipedia entry is thorough and serves as a good resource on the history of the organization.

From their about section, "Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity. The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries."

To be sure, the CFG is not a "loved" organization by the Republican establishment. They play often in primaries both through running their own independent, hard contrasting TV spots and also raise money from their membership for the candidates they endorse. I worked on a campaign in 2006 that was supported by Club For Growth members and when checks arrived via FedEx it was essentially Christmas for our cash-strapped campaign.

CFG "gets" modern campaign warfare and they put resources in to that effort. Their comprehensive online effort has been led remarkably well by Andy Roth. Andy consistently drives their message strategically through many mediums with creativity and cleverness. After all, who could forget this ad against Howard Dean? The Club's website itself is a well-written and often quoted blog and they're even launching micro-site efforts to focus like a laser on particular issues. For example check out the sub-site, VP Watch.

The Club For Growth, as a brand, is very well-defined and received by its more than 40k members. Those members are wired, wealthy and active - a lethal combination.

To be sure, the CFG has had its share of dust-ups with campaigns and candidates on both sides of the aisle and the FEC for alleged infractions. But to its credit, it has endured and will continue to make a difference in this space with or without the blessing of the establishment.

"Entities to Watch"

There are several organizations on the Right which are worth noting as entities to watch. Some of these organizations focus specifically on policy initiatives and legislation, state-based efforts, have yet to launch (but are expected to), or have yet to engage in specific campaigns in this election cycle.

A handful of those organizations worth watching include the Foundation for Defense of Democracies which was tagged in today's Washington Post article, the Sam Adams Alliance, TheVanguard.org, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and American Solutions.

Part III of this series will take a closer look at some of the entities I believe play a role more specifically in Henke's three M's: Messaging, Money, and Mobilization. It will be available soon.

Are there more players competing for this space? What do you think of the efforts of those I have profiled? Weigh in at the comments.

* Read part I of the New Guards series, "Why MoveOn Matters."
* Read part III of the New Guards series, "An Empowered Rightosphere."

In Michael Arrington's interview with McCain's "victory chairwoman," Carly Fiorina, I found this nugget which discusses the embrace of a Long Tail strategy. (Emphasis mine.)

MA: If you look at the pure statistics, Barack Obama has done such a good job in getting friends and followers on the social networks and getting individual people to donate small amounts of money mostly on the internet. What are your plans, and I know its early still, but what are your plans in the near future to counter that and push McCain forward in those spaces as well. Do you have any specific ideas yet?

CF: It is too early for me to talk specifically about how were going to use the social networking sites although there are people thinking about that on Lou Eisenberg’s team. But what I would say is, again, every opportunity to communicate with people is an opportunity to ask for their contribution and as Barack has demonstrated small contributions can make as big a difference over time as big contributions, so nothing is too small. I would also say that it will be a focus of this campaign to go after young people more aggressively than we have to date. We need to broaden the appeal of the party and John McCain by making more diverse audiences aware of who he is and what he stands for and so you’re going to see John McCain reaching out to different members of the community than perhaps people would expect and you’ll see me doing that as well.

This is a strong step in the right direction. And of course, I've been urging a better embrace of the Long Tail for over a year in this space and others.

Heck, maybe even we'll see an uptick of donations for Team McCain at Slatecard. It'd be good if he were at least first in donations received as a POTUS candidate.

A tipster passes along a new Pew Research Center study titled, "Social Networking and Videos Take Off: Internet's Broader Role in Campaign 2008." [Download study as PDF here.]

There are some excellent nuggets in the survey and I would urge others to dig through the report and add them to the comments of this post.

Here are a few that I found in a brief first-read:

The internet is living up to its potential as a major source for news about the presidential campaign. Nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) say they regularly learn something about the campaign from the internet, almost the double the percentage from a comparable point in the 2004 campaign (13%).

Moreover, the internet has now become a leading source of campaign news for young people and the role of social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook is a notable part of the story. Fully 42% of those ages 18 to 29 say they regularly learn about the campaign from the internet, the highest percentage for any news source. In January 2004, just 20% of young people said they routinely got campaign news from the internet.

Of note, TV is still on top as the main source for news, but slipping…

Despite the growth of the internet for campaign news, television remains the public’s main source for such information. However, television is not as dominant as at once was: 60% say they get most of their news about the presidential election from television (local, cable and network outlets combined), down from 68% at comparable points in the 2004 and 2000 campaigns.

By this measure, the internet is still a secondary news source. Only 15% of Americans say they get most of their news about the election online, although that figure has more than doubled since 2004 (from 6%).

Overall, 26% of Americans mention the internet either first or second as their main source of election news. Among young people, the internet is eroding television’s advantage as a main source for election news. Six-in-ten of those ages 18 to 29 cite television as their main source for election news, down from 75% four years ago. Over that time, the proportion citing the internet has more than doubled – from 21% to 46%.

Revolution.

I'm at the Heritage Foundation for the "classiest" bloggers luncheon I've seen in the past year-and-a-half. (This lunch is co-hosted by the State Policy Network which explains the fancy set-up. No complaints Bluey.)

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint is one of the special guests along with Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt.

DeMint is one of my favorite politicians. He's extremely folksy with his South Carolinian charm, but as I've learned after working with another Southerner, Jack Kingston, don't let the Southern accent fool you - DeMint one of the smartest, most tactical politicians in Congress today. Before he served in public office, he ran a marketing firm where he helped teach others how to effectively communicate. Clearly, he was a good teacher.

And boy, does he get it -- how to effectively communicate in the modern world -- that is.

Anyway, back to the story. DeMint is here to talk about bringing the Republican Party back to its conservative roots and his efforts to do that in the Senate through the bicameral Reagan21 Coalition (oddly, can't find a website to link).

He opened his remarks by noting just how important bloggers were to his communication effort. Again, see oddity that I can't find a link to the Reagan21 Coalition -- if you know one, please leave in the comments and I'll include it in the post.

Regarding Reagan21, DeMint said the group is about 30-40 Members of Congress and a handful of Republican Senators who agree to a core list of principles -- among others, a commitment to no earmarks.

Now, back to my fu-fu salad as we wait for Sec. Leavitt.

UPDATE Dec. 6, 11:36 AM: Robert Bluey has video of DeMint talking about bloggers:

It's no secret that I've been spending a majority of my time working on Slatecard, a utility to support and enhance Republican activism. I haven't talked about it much in this space, but it's worth digging in.

Since our launch on October 8, with absolutely zero marketing other than earned media, Slatecard has put up some impressive fundraising numbers for Republican candidates and committees:

* $74,884.65
* 457 contributors
* $163.86 average contribution

This past weekend, we urged our small but growing Slatecard community to help us break the $75K mark. And to be perfectly honest, we came up $115.35 short of that goal.

Coming up short of a goal -- especially your first -- is never easy to swallow. Especially when you're watching, waiting, praying, emailing, and hoping that the goal is reached. But such is life. It was important to see what would happen when we took action.

In the end, 101 contributions were made over the weekend from the Slatecard community. That means that quite a few Republicans will be getting a check in the mail when they were least expecting it and from donors who may have never contributed to a campaign before. In short, the community stepped up to the plate and gave the goal a good run for the money (no pun intended).

And that's good news in an off-year when donations aren't exactly walking in the door for Republican candidates and committees. They need all the help they can get.

Importantly, we helped highlight two new candidates who face a Special Election on December 11:

* Bob Latta, Ohio-05 (seat formerly held by the late Paul Gillmor).
* Rob Wittman, Virginia-01 (seat formerly held by the late Jo Ann Davis).

To be sure, both seats are traditionally Republican. But in this environment, who knows what will happen... especially in a Special Election where turnout means everything.

At Slatecard, we're proud of what we're seeing and hearing from the community. And we're proud that seven candidates for Congress have made a decision to use Slatecard as their primary vehicle to process online credit card donations. And there's much more to come.

Stay tuned. The game is about to change.

Promise.

Jose "Above-the-fold" Antonio Vargas of the Washington Post has a heavy piece up on how the "Internet" and its minions are using the 2008 Presidential candidates for better or worse.

Read the full piece here but this is the takeaway graf which is going to have a few consultants in Washington thinking about whether they need to innovate to include a "new" media component:

In many ways, the Web is more effective than television advertising and direct mail, the traditional methods campaigns and independent groups have used to try to define their opponents, political analysts say. It's cheaper, and it spreads information more quickly. But so far, anyway, its potential for affecting a presidential campaign is relatively untested.

Untested? Two words: Money Bomb.

It works. The price is right. And it's here to stay.

Revolution.

I'd like to re-construct how the Ron Paul campaign raised $4.3M in 24 hours.

All signs point to this being an "independent" effort driven by the Paul community, and it probably started that way, but then I saw this nugget in today's Associated Press:

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.

"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.

For those who have read Joe Trippi's, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," he notes an important turning point on the campaign was when Howard Dean, the candidate, linked his online presence with his personal campaign appearances by carrying the "bat" up on stage with him.

The "bat" was significant because it symbolized a fundraising goal that the community/campaign used on Dean's blog to show the community the progress of funds raised. Most people use a thermometer for a similar symbol and tick up the mercury as funds are raised.

Based on the nugget above provided by the Paul campaign, it appears that Ron Paul may have personally helped inspire/spread the importance of "November 5th." In other words, he was in on it from the moment he heard about it.

I like that.

What do you think? Are there more facts out there to help us piece together Ron Paul's personal involvement?

Ron Paul has "made history," raising more than $2.7 million in the past 16 hours from 21K supporters.

Via their press release:

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beat all online primary fundraising records at 4:00pm today. In 16 hours, the Ron Paul campaign brought in over $2.7 million in online contributions, making it the largest single-day online primary fundraising effort by a presidential candidate in United States election history. Approximately 21,000 Americans made online donations thus far. Today’s efforts surpassed John Kerry’s record $2.7 million online fundraising efforts two days after the 2004 Super Tuesday primaries, and Republican John McCain’s $1 million online following the New Hampshire primaries in 2000.

As of this post (5:13 PM), Paul has raised $5,668,663.00 toward his goal of $12M for the fourth-quarter.

Agree with me or not, this is the Revolution I've been talking about. This will be the campaign that "proves" the importance of an effective Internet strategy to the naysayers and changes the game.

UPDATE 5:30 PM: Jose Antonio Vargas of the WaPo has more. And make sure you check out this guest post at TechPresident from a Paul supporter.

UPDATE 10:35 PM: A note just sent out by Ron Paul's campaign:

Is it possible to comprehend what we've done today? Earth-shattering, jaw-dropping... No matter which way you phrase it, Ron Paul is for real.

Over $3,800,000 raised.

More than 35,000 total donations.

1 message - and 1 candidate - unlike any other.

Can we keep our momentum going? The most successful fundraising day ever is John Kerry's $5.7 million. And that was on the day he accepted the Democratic nomination.

Let's do it: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate

Jonathan Bydlak
Fundraising Director
Ron Paul 2008

This is incredible. I wonder if other candidates -- Republican and Democratic -- are envious? Perhaps this will be the day that changed online politics forever? Time will tell. I'm optimistic.

UPDATE Nov. 6, 9:04 AM: Final results are in: Over a 24 hour period, Ron Paul raised $4.3 million online.

Robert Bluey has a column on the front-page of today's Townhall.com called "Leveling the online playing field," which notes the launch of Slatecard:

Slatecard was founded on the notion that conservatives identify with issues. The site gives the community the ability to assign "issue badges" to a particular candidate, making it easy to see which candidates share the same values, hence the name Slatecard. All and business partner Sendhil Panchadsaram have come up with 26 "issue badges" that users can associate with a candidate. Rudy Giuliani, for instance, has badges for "Defeat Radical Islam," "Social Centrists" and "Tax Simplification."

"Slatecard is what ActBlue would look like today if it was created in 2007 in a Web 2.0 world," All said. The site allows users to connect with candidates on a variety of social networking websites, making it a one-stop destination. It also employs a ticker function to see what's happening in real time.

For this piece, Robert asked me a series of questions via email which I've pasted below (with answers) for your review: (read more after the jump)