24thState

Twitter Is Not Going To Save The Republican Party

I'm a big Twitter fan. You can follow me at twitter.com/24thstate.  And I dig the #TCOT folks and what they're trying to do.  1500 conservatives on Twitter is a good start, but there's something wrong with RNC candidates taking the time to write personal posts on Twitter just to seem technologically cool.

I know the Obama folks thought it was cool to get messages from Obama's Blackberry (it's doubtful it was him - if it was, it was malpractice).  And considering how out of touch the Beltway Conservatives and the national party is to the grassroots, it's probably a good thing they are forced to listen to us to gain credibility.  Sadly, as long as it's seen as necessary to be a part of social networks to gain credibility, the Republican party will be hopelessly behind.  In social media, having Facebook friends does not make you an expert.  In politics, writing a blog or posting Tweets doesn't make you technologically savvy.

Erick Erickson gets it, and lays a harsh truth out on RedState. 

Let me repeat it because it has become my constant theme: to succeed online, the right needs to invest in technologists who know politics and not political consultants who know technology. It is a hell of a lot easier to learn politics than it is technology. Further, technologists understand, develop, and use technology is a way more akin to what normal people do. Political consultants don’t do that. And it is doubly important to go outside of Washington, D.C. because of both points of view and circles of friends.

Erick focuses too much on mythical "technologists" who can build new systems, but he gets the basics right.  It's the same one I've been pointing out for some time.  The Republican party needs to find marketing and technology experts who can upgrade them.  David Axelrod runs a commercial firm that knows how to do this. Sure he's a sleazy astroturfer, but there's more to his work than faking out ComEdison customers. 

There are technology folks out here, but it's doubtful that the RNC can hire and utilize them, for the same reason that so many of us don't give to the party.  They aren't really interested in working with us.  And most of us are scrambling to pay our bills right now, making sure that the economic storm doesn't sweep us under, and that's before January 20th, 2009.

Change is not going to come from inside the party.  It's going to come from a group of young Turks outside the party structure who latch onto a candidate or two we can really trust (or think we can trust), and the resulting authenticity will drive all before it.  That's the similarity to Obama.

Howard Dean was a flawed candidate in many ways, but his infrastructure, and the lessons learned by the online Left made a huge difference in Obama's campaign four years later.  Both campaigns, like Ron Paul's, were driven by personalities.  Obama built on Dean's failures, but is the Republican party building on what Ron Paul built?  Of course not.  They see him as a kook.  A kook who ran circles around the RNC online. 

 I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, though a lot of what he said is starting to make more sense.  Those who supported him may have some outlying views, but something motivated them.  The Republicans need to isolate that enthusiasm and figure out how to apply it to the party.  Imagine a Sarah Palin candidacy powered by a Ron Paul movement.  It's easy to laugh at, but how much different is it than Obama in 2007?

Power in politics is built around candidates. No amount of chair shuffling at the RNC is going to change that.  Bloggers and those interested in making a difference need to find local and state candidates they can support, and use their platforms to help promote those candidates.  If you try to build a separate movement, the leaders will be corrupted by the thrill of fame.

Ask the Kos Kids what that feels like.  Over the next two years, thousands of people like me will have to decide what amount of time we're willing to give to the Republicans in direct conflict with our businesses and our families.  As it stands, with the Republican brand tattered and unfocused, the best bet seems to be focusing on things I can impact.  The job of the RNC, and the Republican establishment, is to make our impact seem meaningful.  Are they up to that? 

Greenpeace Brings Some Much-Needed Comic Relief

I really, really hope this is truly going to start showing up on our television. Greenpeace is putting out some hysterical commercials. I'm sure they don't intend to have this effect on people, but I just don't see how you can watch this and not burst out laughing at the people who gave donations for this.

 The best part is these commercials will be around a long time, and as the global temperature continues to fall, global warming activists are going to increasingly marginalized. Seriously - this is what they spend time and money on?

It gets better.  Video Number two, though not from Greenpeace, is just as wacky.

  Of course, it's going to be very difficult to explain to little children why animals are committing suicide.  Nice message, wackos. 

Let's remember something.  Calling yourself an Environmentalist is the most worthless form of protest there is.  You may feel better, but you're a loon for doing so.  Everyone cares about environmental issues, but disagreeing about how to address them is the basis for the labels. And the simple fact that you're reading this tells me you can't be an environmentalist, because the electricity to power your computer probably came from burning oil or coal.  Them's the breaks!

hat tip - WattsUpWithThat

Happy Holidays From Algore

Chestnuts roasting on an open fire, are blamed for killing polar bears.
Dreams of melted sea ice flooding Tampa Bay, will make it hard to sleep tonight.

You know that Algore's on his way, with lots of charts and graphs in his private jumbo sleigh.
It's always cold, when he arrives, you know it's still quite a sin to stay alive.

And so as the abnormally cold winter settles over the land after a surcease in solar spot activity unaccounted for in computer models...
And as cap-and-trade impoverishes you.

As long as you shell out the bucks for his films,
Merry Christmas to You

Save The Auto Industry by Bailing Out The Taxpayer

I had an idea forwarded me the other day by a reader.  It's somewhat on the level of the Federal Reserve study a few years ago that suggested it would be cheaper to buy every MetroRail user a car than it would be to pay for the Metro.

It's interesting, and at least worth discussion, as it reminds us that bailouts are odious in all their forms, staining the giver and the recipient equally. 

I believe that I have figured out the best way of saving the American automobile industry at the least cost to the taxpayer.  Rather than giving "The Big 3" automakers billions of dollars to stay afloat I believe that paying every American citizen $10,000 for every fuel efficient 4-cylinder General Motors, Ford and Chrysler car they buy over the next 3 years would be the least expensive and most productive way of saving those companies and the jobs at those companies and dealers.
 
One, if most Americans were able to buy a new car with a list price of more than $20,000 for $10,000, or $15,000 car for $5,000, we'd probably see a surge in car sales that should quickly bring our economy out of recession.
 
Two, we'd probably see less gasoline used, replacing cars, SUVs and trucks that used 6 and 8 cylinder engines to get people around. 
 
Three, such an action should result in used car prices falling through the proverbial floor, which could result in a government program being set up to buy large cars, large SUVs and large trucks and shipping them to foreign markets for sale there if they still have some useful life in them.  Such a move could offset the cost of such an action, including paying a premium to the owners of really big cars, SUVS and trucks, which have substantially more weight and mass than cars such as the Honda FIT or a Toyota Prius.
 
Four, people would buy new cars for their kids rather than having them driving less safe and not as reliable older cars.  This should mean fewer kids injured in car accidents, and fewer car repair bills for their parents.
 
Five, only people with $10,000 or cash and/or good credit would be able to take advantage of the opportunity to get a new car for 1/2 price.  But the collapse of used car prices caused by such a scheme should result in many reliable used cars good for years of driving being sold for very low prices.  So many credit-challenged Americans would suddenly be able to acquire dependable wheels for a relatively cheap price. 
 
Six, such a program would result in a lot of sales tax being paid to state governments right away, with personal property taxes paid to county governments increasing sharply the following year. 
 
Seven, like any car; these cars would eventually need repair in 2, 3 or 5 years. 
 
Eight, if the American public choses to pay $20,000 for an imported car rather than $10,000 for a similar American-made automobile, we may have proved that saving the big 3 is impossible.

The idea is probably not politically feasible, as it doesn't have enough perks to satisfy special interest groups, but it's worth at least thinking about. And it's certainly better than another $25 billions given to an industry in the dubious prospect of generating long-term changes.  What do you think?  And do you have a better idea?