Category: Politics and Grassroots

Shut up, I have freedom of speech

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Don’t want to do business with WikiLeaks?  You might find your website getting hacked, like MasterCard or Paypal.  (And you might also get hacked if you represent women who are making accusations of rape, depending on whom they accused.)  Participants in what has been dubbed “Operation Payback” seem just organized enough to take some time off from complaining about not being able to get unlimited movies and music for free online to wreak a little bit of havoc.

The hackers’ concerns are echoed by DataCell, a company that helps WikiLeaks process payments.  DataCell is getting ready to sue Visa and MasterCard to force them to work with WikiLeaks, according to CEO Andreas Fink:

We strongly believe a world class company such as Visa should not get involved by politics and just simply do their business where they are good at. Transferring money. They have no problem transferring money for other businesses such as gambling sites, pornography services and the like so why a donation to a Website which is holding up for human rights should be morally any worse than that is outside of my understanding.

Visa is hurting Wikileaks and DataCell ehf in high figures. Putting all payments on hold for 7 days or more is one thing but rejecting all further attempts to donate is making the donations impossible. This does clearly create massive financial losses to Wikileaks which seems to be the only purpose of this suspension. This is not about the brand of Visa, this is about politics and Visa should not be involved in this.

To summarize what Fink appears to be driving in his sputtered sentence fragments: Visa should not be involved in politics, therefore Fink will use a political entity (the judicial system) to force them to do business with a political organization (WikiLeaks).  Fink and Operation Payback are each quick to defend WikiLeaks’s right to publish unpopular speech, but intolerant of other groups’ choices to simply take their business elsewhere.

The whole mess is a dress rehearsal for the coming clash on American internet regulations like net neutrality. If a site (like WikiLeaks) depends on other companies (like ISPs, hosting companies, and donation platforms) for their survival, will those companies be forced by law to support WikiLeaks and their mission?

The Fonz doesn’t need a handout

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The headline, “Winkler honored by AARP” seems to bring on so many jokes (because really, how depressing that the Fonz is being honored by AARP?).

It time to replace the popular catchphrase “Aaaay” with “Heh?  Speak louder?”

It’s a good thing his office is in the bathroom.

Hope Fonzie didn’t break his hip when he jumped the shark.

Then I read the article, and it turns out I was wr… I was wr… well, you get the picture.  Henry Winkler has actually been an advocate for stroke victims.  And, much like the Fonz, he doesn’t go looking for handouts:

[U]nlike most celebrity visitors, he won’t be seeking any help from Capitol Hill. In fact, he doesn’t think he needs any.

“At the moment, you don’t need the government,” Winkler told POLITICO. “They’ve got their problems that they need to deal with. What we need is awareness – just person to person. Like playing Telephone, you just pass it on. … I am trying to pass it on, and it is really worthwhile to me.”

No word on whether a quick smack with the heel of Winkler’s fist to the annual appropriations bill could create a balanced budget (like when he ended segregation), but at least he’s doing his part.

The Politics of Public Comments

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The White House’s Open Government Initiative – President Barack Obama’s directive to for more transparency and public involvement in the often-arcane machinations of the Executive Branch – celebrates its first birthday today. The initiative’s first year has been largely overshadowed by legislative fights, but the real test will come in 2011 – when the Obama Administration likely becomes the Ministry of Regulation.

The President faces a split Congress in 2011, and lawmaking wasn’t all that easy when he had strong majorities in both Houses. Beyond that, he faces the dual risks of losing his far-left base and alienating the middle by allowing the Republicans to play some offense with their House majority. Of course, any revolutionary bill passed by a Republican House will be shot down by the Democratic Senate – and then the Democrats become the sideline-sitting, Slurpee-sipping, “Party of No” just in time for the 2012 election – freeing them up to hand down edicts on everything from internet regulation to carbon emissions.

What is a President to do?

The answer lies in the alphabet soup of agencies throughout the Executive branch, including such classics as the FCC, the FTC, the SEC, and everyone’s favorite, the EPA. Each has regulatory authority delegated from Congress. And, unlike the President’s allies in Congress, bureaucrats will not have to face voters in 2012.

Regulatory agencies are not immune to public input, but they sure can make it a challenge.

For instance, anyone who has been involved in a land use issue which included federal oversight knows the mass of documents required. Each document (along with draft, final, and supplemental versions) must have its own public comment period, where citizens can submit their thoughts.

In theory, that should mean more avenues for input; in practice it is confusing and redundant. Making the process more complex is the fact that each agency may count comments differently; a regulator has the discretion to decide if a comment should be dismissed for being immaterial. Individual bureaucrats have tremendous interpretive power over the public input that crosses their desk.

Is the grassroots wave against big government – and the nascent GOP House majority they produced – already backed into a corner? Far from it.

The American people haven’t fallen back in love with Washington quite yet, so the electorate is likely to listen to the case against shadow laws via bureaucracy. Grassroots activists should participate in comment periods whenever they can – and make sure elected policymakers get a copy of the same letter or message that went to the regulators. (It isn’t as much fun as a protest or an angry phone call to your local Congressional office, but it’s still important.)

House Republicans can and will schedule oversight hearings. These hearings should include scrutiny over public participation opportunities Members of Congress should hold regulators accountable for providing opportunities for public access to the process – and for being receptive to the will of the people.

The Administration, which so dearly values open government, will be happy to comply – right?

Cross-posted at Pundit League.

How the GOP could heart Huckabee

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

 

(Image from the NY Daily News) Ken Huckaby injures Derek Jeter with a knee to the shoulder on Opening Day, 2003. Though this play had no material effect on the Yankees' 2003 season or Jeter's career and Huckaby is no relation to Mike Huckabee, the world needs to remember that this happened.

In 2008, Republican Presidential candidates climbed all over one another to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.  It’s a sorry speech to give when the best case you have to convince voters is to try to reduce a dead President (even a great one) to a buzzword.  But if Mike Huckabee does find a way to the Republican nomination (and Politico reports the polls look good for him) he would at least be able to draw a comparison between himself and Reagan on their respective political paths.

 

During his oh-so-close 1976 primary challenge to former President Gerald Ford, Reagan was clearly identified in the mold of Barry Goldwater’s limited government, libertarian-themed brand of conservatism.  His 1980 path to victory was made possible by heavy inroads to southern social conservatives – then called the “Moral Majority” and today categorized as “values voters” – and convincing them to abandon favorite son Jimmy Carter.  Huckabee’s second-place showing in 2008 came from conservatives uneasy about supporting John McCain (or socially liberal Rudy Giuliani or Mormon Mitt Romney).

After being the voice of social conservatives in 2008, Huckabee’s path to the nomination in 2012 will mean courting the small-government voices – who, like the values voters from 1976-1980, have become more organized and vocal through the tea party movement.

From a policy perspective, that may not be hard for Huckabee.  Other candidates (as Politico notes) supported TARP while Huckabee opposed it, and his chief rival Romney has the albatross of his Massachusetts health care plan.

Easy right?  Not so fast.  For as much hype as the tea party received, the Club for Growth flexed some pretty big muscles in the 2010 thanks to their small-government, anti-establishment message taking a strong foothold among grassroots activists – and the Club is no friend to Huckabee.  While the Club as an organization probably couldn’t make or break a Huckabee candidacy, garnering support among Club supporters will be critical if Huckabee wants to have a legitimate comparison between himself and the Great Communicator.

This Week’s Lesson: Don’t be a Jerk

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

After exposing catty gossip and American state secrets, WikiLeaks has been taken down – but not by government action.  Amazon refuses to host the site on its servers, and the quest for a new home is proving difficult.

Some proponents of internet regulation are pointing to this as an excellent reason to support net neutrality.   Like any media outlet, Wikileaks is entitled to freedom of the press; the problem here is that Amazon owns the press – and Amazon is exercising its freedom to tell Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to take a long walk off a short pier.  (Admittedly, with some coaxing from Joe Lieberman, but it’s still Amazon’s call.)

Amazon didn’t want to put up with an organization revealing state secrets for the sole reason of embarrassing America.  In short, Assange was a jerk and they no longer wanted to deal with him.

In a parallel move, the House of Representatives chastised tax cheat and self-proclaimed “honest guy” Charles Rangel.  Rangel tried to wrangle up support from his email list, sending a blast message calling on supporters to call their members of Congress and urge them to speak out against a censure vote.  (Side note: Wouldn’t most of the supporters on Rangel’s email list have Rangel as their Congressman?  This email blast couldn’t have been that effective.)

Rangel called it a “political” vote, claiming throughout the process that his 11 ethics violations did not merit the rebuke of his peers.  Yet, incredibly, rebuke him they did – overwhelmingly and in the first truly bipartisan vote Congress has seen in some time.

As Washington Times reporter Kerry Pickett found out, Rangel doesn’t view himself as someone who has to answer questions.  Maybe that’s why Rangel, like Julian Assange, ran out of friends so fast:

What it takes – on campus or off

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 2 Comments

Every now and then, I like to peek in on the Leadership Institute’s Campus Reform blog, and yesterday caught an excellent post by Tony Listi on message development.  Listi titled the post “What it Takes to Win Politically on a College Campus,” but don’t be fooled; this is chock full of great information about building an effective organization.

The whole post is worth a read, but the advice for organization builders on defining their mission is particularly on point:

Direct your time, money, energy, political capital, and other resources toward a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable objective on campus. This principle is the most important because it is the groundwork for everything else. What is your objective on campus? How you define the problem(s) determines your objective(s)…

The following objectives are not clear, decisive, or attainable:

  • Raise awareness about ____.
  • Educate the student body about ____.
  • Prove to everyone we are right.

A frustrating mistake made by many organizations could be avoided by this step of defining a clear objective.  (And probably, many would-be organizational entrepreneurs are actually most interested in Bad Mission #3, and feel like they can pull a salary and have fancy business cards.)  In the long run, those groups tend to suffer for it.  Maybe they could stand to go back to school.

Jeter vs. the Yankees: Framing the debate

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The dance between Derek Jeter and the Yankees started as a civilized and friendly waltz, but has quickly devolved into the gang fight in the video for “Beat It.”  Each side is almost taunting the other to consider a universe where Jeter is not with the Yankees.  And of course, unlike most salary negotiations which are confidential, the fight is public.

What’s fascinating is the attempt by Jeter to frame the negotiations in the most favorable light:

[A] baseball industry source said the Yankees have provided Jeter and [Agent Casey] Close with detailed statistical and market analysis to support their contract offer, including comparisons between Jeter and other shortstops and middle infielders throughout baseball.

That is the way Jeter’s last contract, the 10-year, $189 million deal that expired with the end of the 2010 World Series, was negotiated, based on Jeter’s contention and the Yankees concurrence that Jeter was the second-best shortstop in the game, behind Alex Rodriguez, who had just signed a 10-year, $252 million deal with the Texas Rangers.

This time, the Jeter side is said to not want Jeter’s value to be judged against that of other shortstops, preferring to base his worth on his legacy as an all-time great Yankee.

This is the equivalent of staying on offense in a political campaign or a public relations battle – framing a debate to be about the issues on which your side is strongest.  And it’s hard to argue with Jeter’s place in the prestigious Yankees pantheon now – an argument he couldn’t make in 2000, after just his fifth full year in the majors.

In other words, if this “campaign” is about wanting to see Jeter continue to pursue Yankees history – such as becoming the first Yankee ever with 3,000 hits – Jeter wins the negotiations and the hearts and minds of the fans.  If the “campaign” is about the Yankees having roster flexibility, phasing out aging players, and not allowing their team to become bogged down by expensive contracts to 40-year-old players (again), then the front office wins.

Of course, the “campaign” is always about the World Series trophy for the Yankees and their fans (including me), giving the Yankees an important advantage – after all, no matter how angry fans get at the idea of Jeter walking away, a 2011 World Championship would inflict a case of mass amnesia.  So regardless of whether Jeter or the Yanks’ front office blinks first, the success or failure of this campaign, like so many others, won’t be fully appreciated until the first week of November.

3 Lessons from Wikileaks and Infoterrorism

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

On America’s signature holiday, WikiLeaks continued its signature assault on America.  First came the hand-wringing, then came the finger pointing, and next will come the crackdown; but missing from all the coverage are the lessons of Julian Assange’s attack on the US Government.

Wikileaks deals in what could be called “infoterrorism.”  While militant terrorists seek to slow the gears of government through fear of violence, Assange (who looks like he could be cast as Niles Crane in a Christopher Nolan adaptation of “Frasier”) works through extreme exposure of unflattering details.  And through all the criticism, the fact remains that he isn’t making stuff up – the words in those cables are as authentic as they are embarrassing.

1.  WikiLeaks’s victories are designed for the PR field of battle.

There will be no tribunal of world powers who condemn the United States.  The UN isn’t going to boot the US out.  The US will not be stripped of its Heisman trophy.

Because the document dumps are so large, it’s clear that WikiLeaks is less concerned about getting specific content out than demonstrating their ability to find and release large amounts of information.  Sure, the disclosure will slow down diplomacy, but this is more about creating an image of America as large, unwieldy, and incompetent.

2.  Our state and defense infrastructures are too big to be trustworthy.

The big question, of course, is how WikiLeaks got their wikihands on the US Government’s secret stuff?

As a media organization, WikiLeaks cannot – and should not – be prosecuted for their part in the exposure of the documents.  But someone has been giving them the materials that have been causing such a firestorm.  Either too many people have their hands on sensitive information, or the ones who do are simply untrustworthy with sensitive information – in which case, the US Government has problems far beyond a PR black eye.

3.  State Department officials should observe discretion and STOP WRITING $#!& DOWN!

Most people with half a brain who work in an office environment assume their emails will be read (or could be read) by the IT staff and don’t talk crap about co-workers via email.  That includes people who work in office environments that aren’t subject to international spies stretching the limits of ingenuity and technology to intercept transmissions… such as the State Department.  So one would think the folks in the State Department would be even more sensitive about their written communications, right?  The most embarrassing revelations in the Wikileaks dump probably should never have existed to begin with.

Email marketing done right

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The Wife received an email today from Adare Manor, one of the places we stayed during our honeymoon:

The email also included a message:

May you be surrounded by the warmth of home, the love of family & the company of good friends.  Happy Thanksgiving from Adare Manor.

It may seem simple, but it stands out because Adare Manor is in Ireland, and Thanksgiving – at least, the one that’s happening this week, is an American holiday.  They sent us a card for a holiday they don’t even celebrate – and judging by the message, they seem to have a good idea of what the holiday is all about, too.

Too often, online communication – especially through email lists – is treated like a broadcast medium.  It takes little more than some strategic thought and an investment of time to do things like segment out your list and craft your text carefully.  Sometimes, those running email programs lose sight of the fact that each row in their database of addresses is attached to a real person.

Sure, Adare Manor is trying to find ways to remind me that they exist, and encourage me to come back and stay there if I find myself in western Ireland again.  But they’re doing it based on what’s on my mind right now.  Even though there are probably tens of thousands of past American patrons who stayed in Adare and who received that same email, it feels personal.

Americans for Prosperity helps lower holiday week productivity

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Channeling 1980s classic Nintendo games, Americans for Prosperity has a fun game called “Lame Duck Hunt” on one tab of their Facebook page.

The game isn’t all that challenging, though the gloating images of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that taunt you when you miss make it slightly more frustrating than it needs to be.  This isn’t a game review, though, it’s a strategy review, and there are a few things AFP gets very right.

First, you can’t play the game without surrendering an email address and a zip code, meaning that anyone who participates in this little time-waster tells AFP which Congressional district they live in and how to get in touch with them.

(You do have to re-submit your information each time you play, which discourages repeat users.)

Once you’re in, you predictably shoot down ducks, which then disappear in a cloud of feathers and leave behind warnings like “Higher Debt,” “Card Check,” or “Huge Tax Hikes” – the policies which ostensibly could be the result of the lame duck Congress.  You can then share your score with friends.

This is where AFP’s aim starts going awry.  The game never offers any backing for the labels – there are no details about suggested or proposed legislation which would lead to union bailouts, huge tax hikes, or higher debt.  The message at the end invites me to “visit the Americans for Prosperity website” for more information – but there is no link.  Contrast that with the game released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last week, This Way to Jobs, a digital version of Chutes and Ladders which outlined the pitfalls of launching a small business.

Further, I have played the game several times (for… uh… research, for this post – that’s the ticket).  That means I’ve entered my email address multiple times, and haven’t yet received a follow-up auto-responder email.  After anyone plays the game, a quick follow up email inviting further action – while the issues are still fresh in the player’s head – could help AFP determine who is really on board with their policy agenda and who just hates video ducks.

Ideally, the game over screen and follow up communication would also allow users to identify what future actions they would be willing to take.  At the very least, it would invite a user to become a fan of AFP’s Facebook page.

These extra steps may not help with the lame duck agenda, but 2011 will be a critical year as the Republicans and Democrats try to set themselves up for success in 2012.  Lame Duck Hunt is a cool idea, and well-timed – between the impending holiday and people taking off work early to beat traffic, Thanksgiving week ranks only ahead of the dead week between Christmas and New Years in terms of productivity.  To that end, it’s guaranteed to bring web traffic – and it looks like AFP was content with that.