Proof we’re winning: Capitol Hill receiving more than 1 million emails per day

Here is an interesting article from NationalJournal.com that gives a small glimpse into the IT infrastructure currently being used by on Capitol Hill.

As a tech-geek, I’ll avoid going into total analytical nerd mode, however the very fact that National Journal was compelled to write an article titled “E-Mail Surge Forces Hill IT to Keep Up” is a testament to the hard work of activists across the country.

From the article:

“There were delays on inbound Internet traffic yesterday but, given the fact that we receive on average more than 1 million e-mails per day, our system is extremely reliable and interruptions/slowdowns are rare. The volume is constantly increasing and we continually review technology upgrades to deal with it,” Kyle Anderson said in a statement.

One million emails per day, that’s a force to be reckoned with.

What I find even more uplifting about that number is that Anderson says it’s continually on the rise, which leads me to believe that a big portion of this activity can be attributed to the long awaited coming of age (in a technological sense) of the conservative movement.

Now with conservatives having a powerful presence on sites like Facebook, Twitter, Ning, and various other social networking sites, it’s extremely easy to relay information that drives action.

What’s even more uplifting about all of this is that it’s not just Hill-targeted email traffic that is on the rise, it’s also overall web-traffic.

Check out this graph showing the monthly traffic numbers of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate:

As the graph shows, December saw a decline in traffic, which is to be expected after a heated election with a lame-duck President.

However, what I find more remarkable is how quickly the level of traffic has picked up on the Hill. It’s often the case that after heated elections political apathy on both sides is a symptom that plagues even the most active politicos.

It looks like things are different now.

If political apathy can be avoided month-after-month between now and November 2010, I don’t see any reason why the Republicans in both the House and Senate wouldn’t gain (or at least keep) most of the contested seats.

RNC to host its first ‘Tech Summit’ this Friday

Over the weekend I found out about and registered for a technology summit that the Republican National Committee will be hosting at their headquarters this Friday (February, 13).

The goal of this summit appears to be simple, give Republican activists who are also involved in various tech-related communities the opportunity to share their ideas and possibly recommend new products or concepts that could help the GOP rebuild their image and infrastructure.

News of the summit was also briefly mentioned on Politico.com:

A Republican closely involved with the changes at the party said the summit “underscores the seriousness with which the new chairman takes the party’s deficiency in terms of the use of technology internally and externally,” and the fact that “the Republican party is well behind the Democratic Party.

The Republican acknowledged that tech conversation during the chairman’s race — which featured one moment at the Americans for Tax Reform debate at which candidates compared their personal tech use — left much to be desired.

“That was ridiculous and embarrassing to watch,” the Republican said, adding that Friday’s event will be “an open casting call” for Republicans both inside and outside current debates over the party’s technology, and focused on communicating the GOP message more broadly than has been done in the past.

If  you’re going to be in the DC area this Friday, or would like to share your ideas via email, you can find more information here.

We are Republican?

Here is a new video from RebuildTheParty.com, titled “WeAreRepublican.” I’m not sure why it’s one word, but for whatever reason that’s how they decided to do it on their YouTube page. While it doesn’t earn points in terms of search engine optimization and quality YouTube tagging, I think it’s well produced.

My thoughts on some of the profiles:

Warie: “I’m proud to be a Republican, because the Republican Party offers the best opportunities to all.”

While that sounds great, who is “all?” One of the problems that we have within the GOP is our position on immigration. Some factions of the party would like to see a more “open-border” approach implemented, whereas others would like to build fences and make everyone waits there turn.

Even though it’s easy to make a statement suggesting that we offer the best opportunities for all, the reality is that currently (as a party), we don’t even have a definition of “all.”

We can’t brand ourselves as the party that offers the best opportunities until we know who they apply to, and more importantly, what those opportunities are.

Sean: “I just align myself with the Republican Party, anything from going hunting, to buying my first firearm, starting to pay taxes…”

This clip was obviously designed to target the pro-gun crowd, which I agree is an important segment of the Republican Party. However I always find it odd when people try to bring the NRA into these political debates by making it sound like the NRA is a Republican front-group. The reality of this is false, as the NRA has endorsed dozens of Democrats over party-line towing Republicans.

Dale: “I never followed politics until I owned my own business. I’m a small business owner…”

Perfect! Now this is exactly what we need to be focusing on. People vote with their pocketbooks, and unfortunately over the last 8 years, the Republican Party hasn’t done much to protect and/or expand them.

Velle: “I immediately found out that most of my beliefs are in line with what the Republican believe: Less taxes, less government, defense of my community and my nation…”

I agree with Velle, but unfortunately you’re always going to have caveats due to the power of single issue voting blocks. Sure, we might push for less government in terms of business and the economy, but then when it  comes to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and even education, we’ve often been the first to show up with a plan to use the big hand of the government to exert power.

Barry: “I want to see a leader who believes in what they do, not someone who says or will do anything because they think it will be popular.”

Excellent.

Diana: “To be a conservative, to be a Republican, means that you believe in the core Republican values… lower taxes, smaller government, transparency in government…”

One of the biggest challenges that the Republican Party needs to face is the fact  that we are never going to be the party that is 100% conservative (unfortunately).

The problem is that “conservatism” has become so skewed by the religious right over the last 30 years that many don’t even know what true-conservatism is anymore. Beyond that, I think it’s safe to say that Americans are becoming even more libertarian (some fusionist, maybe), so that’s an audience the Party will eventually have to cater to as well. However, she is spot on with the rest of her vision.

Harry: “The Republican Party is a party that believes in the equality of all people…”

Unfortunately, as long James Dobson is on his soapbox instructing his followers what to do, the Republican Party is going to have a tough time becoming something that emphasizes total equality for all.

I was extremely thrilled to see that they brought Barry Goldwater into this video, highlighting a quote from his 1964 speech at the Republican National Convention:

Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty throughout the world.

While that’s a good quote, there are two even more fitting quotes from the very same speech:

Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people. And, so help us God, that is exactly what a Republican president will do with the help of a Republican Congress.

and

Balance, diversity, creativity – these are the elements of Republican equation. Republicans agree, Republicans agree heartily to disagree on many, many of their applications, but we have never disagreed on the basic fundamental issues of why you and I are Republicans.

Unfortunately, it seems like that last quote is the one that many Republicans (some who we’ve spent countless hours trying to get elected) have forgotten.

A year in review for DC Republican

What a crazy year 2008 was, and from what it seems like, what an exciting year 2009 will be.

With 2008 now a thing of the past, I’ve found myself looking back at DCRepublican.com, our traffic, and some of the attention received throughout the course of the year.

When I first started blogging regularly on DC Republican (January, 2008), the first month brought 487 unique visitors to the site.

In just twelve months, this blog has gone from 487 unique visitors per month, to now averaging over 8,500 unique visitors, 13,500 visits, and 41,700 page views per month (source: Advanced Web Statistics version 6.7)

When reviewing our top URL’s, I was quite impressed to see that above everything was our main RSS feed, receiving over 71,000 page views over the course of 2008 (we have dozens of other specific feeds that are also popular and not part of the 71,000). Following the RSS feed was our homepage (over 51,000 views), followed by “Senate Gets Cloture, Grassley Still Needs to be Stopped” (over 34,000 views).

In terms of coverage, when I first started this blog, this was something that I didn’t even consider. Generally speaking, I’m not an attention-whore like so many in DC, which is one of the reasons that I tend not to use my name on this blog (though that might be changing soon for other reasons).

Regardless, 2008 even brought some media to DCRepublican.com by way of Al-Jazeera TV and France 24 news. True, there hasn’t been any mainstream domestic coverage, but I think that any media attention given to such a new blog is a milestone in itself.

So what’s next?

To be honest, I’m not really sure what the future of DCRepublican.com will hold. What I do know, however, is that if this blog is going to be successful, I’m going to have to put more into it. I know in the past, my post frequency tended to be all over the map, so in 2009 I’m hoping to standardize things more so that I can get into a routine of commenting on stories of importance on a more regular basis.

Even though I have no idea what 2009 will hold, I do know that it’s destine to be an exciting year. With incoming Obama administration and a new party in power, DC is going to become a completely different town. While many people are weary of this prospect, I couldn’t be more excited.

So in closing, thank you for the hundreds of emails sent to me over the course of 2008, the many constructive comments, and most importantly for simply visiting this site.

2008 wasn’t bad, but I promise 2009 will be better.

See you soon.

Should Congress regulate how they can use new media?

While it’s no surprise that each year more Americans turn to the internet to find news about what is happening in Congress, what is surprising is how resistant certain factions in Congress are when it comes to letting Members of Congress communicate with their constituency more freely.

Currently, there is a debate brewing in the House about how the Franking Commission should relax the rules when it comes to communications using outside platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Following a firestorm of debates in the blogosphere last week (including an online petition from the Sunlight Foundation), yesterday’s New York Times had an article highlighted the debate, and its bipartisan response thus far.

The Times’ article made it quite evident that there was support on both sides. But what is truly troubling is the position of Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano, Member of the House Franking Commission:

Mr. Capuano wants web sites where lawmakers post videos to be scrubbed of advertising and political messages that could be seen as endorsements.

What’s so troubling about this proposed change, is that it essentially tells a company that if they want to open their services up to members of Congress so they can reach the masses, they’ll have to remove the possibility of generating any profits whatsoever.

If we were to implement Congressman Capuano’s vision on a larger scale, I don’t see how there could be any way that a Member of Congress could reach out to any media source. For example, if a member wanted to write an op-ed, would it have to be in a publication that has no advertising? If it’s re-posted on the publications website, would they have to remove all advertising from that page?

The reality is that no Member of Congress would ever suggest a move this radical when it comes to using traditional media. So why be so restrictive when it comes to integrating new media?

While Congressman Capuano claims that he supports the idea of making Congress more modern, I don’t see how you can do that by limiting uploads to sites that are advertisement free.

If this rule change ever went through, I can guarantee that there would be even more confusion about what members can and cannot use to communicate with their constituency.

Sure, they might remove the ads from a YouTube page, but what about the embed feature? Is it acceptable for a member to upload something to YouTube, and then for others to spread it across the web? What about other features YouTube has like social bookmarking sites (Digg, Reddit, Propeller, etc)? What about Facebook? They all have advertisements, therefore each raise questions that would have to be answered.

Then of course there are the arguments about which services, other than YouTube, a member can upload videos to? There is no way that YouTube competitors will sit idly by while they are being barred from sharing messages created by elected officials, simply because they allow advertising to sustain their business. In reality, they are following the exact same business model as newspapers, magazines and television stations.

I’m sure there are a wide variety of other problems that could develop from maintaining such a restrictive policy on new media, and I urge you to share them below.