TimKaine.com Owned by Conservative Activist

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) brings a number of attractive qualities to the ticket as vice president, but Sen. Barack Obama's tech savvy campaign team will have to work to rescue a valuable URL if Kaine is chosen as the senator's running mate.

Right now, visitors to TimKaine.com are automatically redirected to the official website of Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling.

As reported by the Washington Post in 2005, the domain name TimKaine.com was registered in April 2001 by Matt Chancey, a young, self-described conservative Christian activist who lived in Harrisonburg, Virginia at the time.

While there were initial fears that he would use the Web site to tarnish Kaine's image, they were laid to rest when the Chancey chose to redirect visitors to Kaine's official lieutenant governor's web page. The Web site didn't become an issue and the Kaine campaign utilized Kaine2005.org, which is no longer active.

But it appears that Chancey never updated the redirect, and so visitors to TimKaine.com are now directed to the official Web site of Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling. If Kaine ends up being chosen as Obama's running mate and the pair wins the election, Bolling would succeed Kaine as governor of Virginia.

Most importantly, if Kaine is chosen, the Obama campaign will likely do everything they can to obtain the coveted URL. Chancey just lost a July 15 runoff for the GOP nomination for Public Service Commission president in Alabama.

The first draft of this item first appeared on Political Wire on July 29, 2008.

DeMint Embraces Online Fundraising Tool

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has agreed to use the Republican Web site Slatecard exclusively for his fundraising.

DeMint, one of the most tech-savvy Members of the Senate, is the first Senator to utilize the popular Web site. And it’s just an extension of his efforts to reach constituents, voters and donors through the Web.

“Sen. DeMint is excited about new technologies that allow direct and dynamic communication with people in South Carolina and throughout the country,” DeMint Communications Director Wesley Denton said.

DeMint, the chairman of the Republican Steering Committee, has a sleek Senate Web site, where he and his staff blog. The site also has six separate regional blogs maintained by staff and accessed by inputting a county or ZIP code. He used YouTube to respond to President Bush’s most recent State of the Union address. And he has a Twitter account, but it’s just a feed from the blog on his campaign Web site, not a minute-by-minute breakdown of his daily activities.

The former owner of a marketing company, DeMint has engaged the blogging community and embraced the Internet has a strategic and marketing tool.

He committed just a few days ago to Slatecard and has taken in $3,581 from 12 contributors. But his race for a second term isn’t until 2010.

The move could give the Web site a boost. DeMint is a star within conservatives in the caucus. He raised $9 million in 2004 and will raise more next cycle. DeMint is also using the site to raise money for his political action committee, Senate Conservatives Fund.

Slatecard, considered the Republican equivalent of ActBlue on the Democratic side, has taken in about $411,000 since its inception nine months ago. The goal of the site’s founders is to raise $1 million for the cycle.

ActBlue was founded in 2004 and has taken in $56.8 million since. According to the Wall Street Journal, the site took in nearly $792,000 in its first cycle.

The top Republican fundraiser on Slatecard thus far was Kevin O’Neill, who raised $64,744 from 126 contributors by using Slatecard exclusively for all his fundraising for the special election last fall in Virginia’s 1st district. He lost the GOP nominating contest to Rep. Rob Wittman (R).

The site was co-founded by David All, a former communications director to Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), and San Diego software developer Sendhil Panchadsaram. All is also the founder of TechRepublican.com.


This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 11, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Illinois 11: Not an Ordinary Campaign Web Site

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Republican businessman Martin Ozinga’s first television ad in Illinois’ 11th district race isn’t particularly exciting news, but his campaign is trying to leverage a unique Web site to attract curious or skeptical voters who may be disillusioned with the political process.

The 30-second bio ad, which is running on cable stations in a majority of the 11th district, directs people to Iamnotapolitician.com, instead of Ozinga’s regular campaign Web site.

At Iamnotapolitician.com, viewers are greeted with a simple and stark red page with “I am not a politician” written across the page in white capital letters. Then, a 90-second introductory video, which is different than the television ad, automatically pops up and introduces Ozinga through testimonials.

After the video concludes, the phrase “I am ... committed” appears, referencing the themes of the video, and visitors can either replay the video, e-mail it to a friend or “Learn More,” which takes them to the official campaign Web site.

The Web site and theme is meant to contrast Ozinga’s biography with that of his opponent, state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson (D). But Ozinga got into the race late after the GOP nominee dropped out and is battling to hold the open seat being vacated by Rep. Jerry Weller (R).

Ozinga’s supporters got the idea for the Web site in early April and bought the domain name for $30. Iamnotapolitician.com made its official debut April 30, when the URL was emblazoned across a giant red banner behind Ozinga during his announcement speech. The campaign subsequently had road signs with the Web address and placed inexpensive banner ads on the Web sites of the daily newspapers in the district to drive people to the site.

Though the tactic is unique, it’s not without some glitches. First, the video takes a long time to load, even on a high-speed connection. And second, the Web site doesn’t offer an initial way to capture valuable information, such as e-mail addresses of visitors, that campaigns covet these days.

Overall, Republican Internet consultant David All panned it. “It’s a clever URL, but how far is that going to get you?”

“It’s a good way to introduce Marty in a simple, but powerful way,” Ozinga campaign manager Andy Sere said. “It’s a practical thing we can use to drive a message.”



This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 10, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Ron Paul, Politics and the Internet in the ’08 Campaign

By Stuart Rothenberg

Thank goodness for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his campaign for president.

Single-handedly, the quirky libertarian Republican from Texas has unintentionally exposed the over-hype that accompanies much of the talk about politics and the Internet.

Paul has been doing well in post-debate call-ins and Internet “polls” for months, and his Web site has been scoring more hits than a bong at a Grateful Dead concert. Recently, he received a wave of publicity because of a single day of fundraising, when some 35,000 contributors gave more than $4 million to the Congressman’s presidential bid.

But big-sounding numbers can be deceiving, and politics is more about breadth of support than depth. Ultimately, elections are about winning votes, not Web visitors or even campaign dollars.

Yes, $4 million is a lot of money to raise in a single day. But it pales in comparison to the overall fundraising of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who didn’t need a one-day fundraising event to get media attention.

Still, let’s give the Texan credit for his fundraising. But what does that mean if he also has no chance of becoming the GOP presidential nominee, or even of winning a single primary contest?

Yes, I know. This statement alone is enough to generate far too many e-mails and telephone calls from Paul supporters accusing me of being anti-democratic and of violating the Constitution. When I wrote months ago in this space that it was time for Paul and other third-tier candidates to be excluded from televised debates, more than a couple of reporters made it clear that although they agreed with my view, they didn’t want to be swamped by angry e-mails and phone calls.

The result is that many in the national media have treated Paul casually. Some media types surely find him interesting, especially given his views on Iraq. And people who cover “new technologies,” including the Internet, have a self-interest to hype Paul’s Web hits and Internet fundraising. But you hear very little about his kooky votes.

Hardly anyone is bothering to talk about his votes against resolutions calling on the government of Vietnam to release political prisoners and on the Arab League to help stop the killing in Darfur. Nor do they note that he said during his 1988 Libertarian bid for president that he would do away with the FBI and CIA, abolish the public schools, eliminate Social Security and all farm subsidies, and withdraw from NATO.

Reporters don’t talk about his views and philosophy because they know he isn’t a credible contender, but at the same time they refer to his fundraising and Web presence as if he’s relevant.

Recently, a reporter for a major national newspaper wrote a piece about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s movement in the Republican presidential race by comparing him to Paul. (Huckabee’s momentum in Iowa is real, though it is still unclear if he’ll develop into a top-tier hopeful.)

The reporter wrote the following: “[Huckabee’s] campaign saw Web site traffic jump to levels second among Republicans only to that of Mr. Paul, who has a strong base of Internet supporters, forcing it to upgrade its server three times.”

The comparison was interesting but totally meaningless. Yes, Paul gets lots of Web site traffic. And yet, has zero chance of being nominated. Given that, who cares about Paul’s Web traffic (or Huckabee’s, for that matter), unless you are a technology reporter who is personally invested in your beat?

Anyway, I’ll offer a guess as to why Paul is raising all that cash and generating those Web hits. He received 423,000 votes when he ran as the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president in 1988, raising a little more than $2 million. Anyone who knows libertarians knows that they are a committed bunch, certain that the country has lost its way and in need of immediate repair.

I’ll bet that many who voted for and contributed to Paul in the past (he raised more than $2 million for his House races in 1998 and 2000) are investing in his presidential campaign this time, and he almost certainly is drawing support from liberals who connect with his views on the war in Iraq, from frustrated Americans who simply don’t like “the system,” and from some Republicans who are at the libertarian extreme of their party.

Check out Paul’s Web site. He is openly appealing to voters who aren’t registered Republicans by including, on the lower left hand corner of his Web site, a box listing “party affiliation change deadlines.” “You must be registered with the correct party to vote for Ron Paul in closed primaries,” says the site.

Sorry, but you can’t win a Republican presidential nomination by relying on the support of non-Republicans. Nor can you win if you finish fifth in the Iowa straw poll (in which three credible candidates didn’t participate) and third in your home state’s straw poll behind Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.).

How can we explain Ron Paul? This is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, some of whom are attracted to quirky, anti-establishment candidates. And some of those people are angry, looking for an outspoken leader and searching for an easy answer to the nation’s problems. But there simply are not all that many of them.

The Internet undoubtedly has made it easier for Paul supporters to connect with the campaign and with each other, and it’s become a terrific way to raise cash for a candidate with emotional followers. But Web chatter, declarations of undying support on Facebook and even surprising fundraising totals don’t make a serious contender out of a candidate from the political fringe. Ultimately, it’s about votes.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 27, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

The Webs They Weave: Campaign Committees’ Net Strategies Evolving

By Nathan L. Gonzales

These aren’t your grandparents’ — or even your parents’ — campaign committees.

Howard Dean’s run for president in 2004 uncovered the financial potential of the Internet, but just three years later, the subsequent explosion and popularity of blogs, YouTube, MySpace and Facebook have the campaign committees installing online liaisons as permanent fixtures.

Most of the coverage of technology this cycle has focused on the race for president, including the “1984” YouTube ad promoting Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and the controversy surrounding former Sen. John Edwards’ (D-N.C.) official blogger.

But online activity could be a factor in a number of House and Senate races. As the relationship between bloggers and party strategists becomes more complex, the committees are hoping to harness the energy of the net roots without upsetting an online mob.

This past cycle in Illinois’ 6th district, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee locked horns in a classic battle between bloggers and the establishment. Online activists rallied behind the candidacy of 2004 nominee Christine Cegelis, while then-DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) put every ounce of energy behind Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth in the Democratic primary. (Similar battles, albeit on a smaller scale, also occurred in Florida’s 13th district, California’s 11th and the Ohio Senate race.)

Duckworth narrowly won the nomination but lost an extremely expensive general election race, further upsetting bloggers who believed the money could have been better spent in other districts where Democratic candidates lost narrowly with little national support.

There are often multiple sources of tension in these battles. First, there is the insider-versus-outsider mentality. The bloggers resented Emanuel’s heavy-handed support for a candidate unknown to the district and, worse yet, unknown to the blogging underworld.

Second, many bloggers tend to support the 50-state strategy Dean has developed as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, while the Congressional campaign committees tend to focus their resources on the most competitive races. In the case of Illinois’ 6th, Emanuel supported Duckworth precisely because he was trying to expand the playing field and believed that a Cegelis nomination would have taken the seat off the table.

Eventually, the bloggers and the campaign committees may settle into separate, complementary roles.

“We can’t target every race. It’s just not possible,” explained one Democratic insider. Influential blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of DailyKos agrees. “The DCCC can focus on districts that are the most winnable,” he explained in “The Thumpin’,” Naftali Bendavid’s new book about the 2006 elections. “We can do the others, every district, to spread the Republicans thin and to have a body there in case someone resigns.”

Third, there are bloggers on both sides of the aisle who believe in the purification of their party, with the view that any candidates who stray from the ideological fold must be punished. Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) felt the wrath of their respective blogospheres last year.

At this point, Democratic bloggers are more demanding and require more care from the committees than their Republican counterparts. Democratic bloggers have sought recognition as strategists, particularly on resource allocation and candidate recruitment, rather than just fundraisers.

This distinction is apparent in how the committees are structured. Taryn Rosenkranz, the DCCC’s director of online services, oversees a staff of three people, including Stakeholder blogger Brandon English, and answers to both Executive Director Brian Wolff and Communications Director Jennifer Crider. Jesse Lee, who handled online outreach for the committee for the past two cycles, now blogs for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on The Gavel.

Mike Liddell is beginning his third cycle at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and is the director of online communications. He temporarily is a one-man operation, running the committee’s official blog and reporting to DSCC Executive Director J.B. Poersch.

On the Republican side, online liaisons are more junior positions and are a part of the communications department. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has hired John Randall as the e-press secretary, working under Communications Director Rebecca Fisher.

Josh Shultz is the new media director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, falling under Communications Director Jessica Boulanger. Shultz is filling the position for the only committee that didn’t previously have a dedicated staffer for online activity.

Winning does cover many wounds. This year it’s the Republican committees that have found themselves at odds with bloggers. In January, blogger Hugh Hewitt issued his “NRSC Pledge,” challenging conservatives to withhold their support from the committee unless the NRSC agreed to withhold resources from any GOP incumbent who voted against President Bush’s troop “surge.” NRSC Chairman John Ensign (Nev.) immediately got on the phone with Hewitt and appeared on his radio show to respond.

Now, Erick Erickson of RedState, with the support of prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, is challenging the Republican leadership and the NRCC, calling it a “war for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.” Erickson is concerned with Rep. Ken Calvert’s (R-Calif.) past land deals and personal conduct and is asking supporters to withhold contributions from the NRCC until Calvert is removed from the Appropriations Committee.

“This will be ugly. This will be hard,” Erickson wrote.

Just last week, NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) posted on RedState in response to a Washington Post article, but he’s not the only chairman to speak directly with the bloggers.

DSCC Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) did a sit-down interview with Jonathan Singer of MyDD in March and has posted twice on DailyKos this year. National Democrats first learned about Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks (D), now a potential challenger to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), in a comment thread following his post. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) did a live blog on Firedoglake and holds periodic conference calls with other bloggers.

Official committee blogs can serve as an outlet for political messages and ads, but it’s often necessary for the online liaisons to develop credibility on outside blogs. “Folks need to feel as if you believe in ‘the movement,’ that you respect them and what they do,” explained one Democratic operative familiar with the online culture.

The medium can lend itself to inflammatory rhetoric, but that’s why personal contact and relationships are critical. “When you talk face to face, there is a lot of agreement,” said one Democratic insider, who noted some bloggers will be against the establishment no matter what.

Along with the national blogs, the committees are making a concerted effort to communicate with state-specific blogs. Because state and local political reporters often read the local blogs, the national committees see an opportunity to affect the media coverage that voters read and watch.

National strategists are also exploring other ways of communicating their message online. Besides developing microsites such as DirtyDickPombo.com and TheRealDemocratStory.com, all four committees have YouTube channels to circulate their Web videos. The NRCC also has a Twitter account and a MySpace profile and will launch a Facebook profile next week. The NRSC has a MySpace account in the works. And the DCCC has asked each of its Frontline incumbents to generate a list of 30,000 e-mails in their district by Election Day.

In the near term, the flow of information will predominantly come from the committees. On the Democratic side, bloggers are gaining a prominent seat at the table, but their ability to influence strategic decisions is still minimal.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on May 17, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.