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.

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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

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.

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.

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.

For more what Chuck Grassley is trying to do, click here to read more.

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s none other than Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa that has developed the language that would essentially open the door to online merchants like Ebay, Amazon, Google Checkout, etc. reporting all of their transaction activity to the government.

First of all, it’s important to note that this provision was packaged in the Housing Bill, which has absolutely nothing to do with online merchants. The provision was buried amongst 600+ pages of legislation, making it more likely to be overlooked by tired Hill staffers. For those who haven’t read the language, here it is (source):

Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

It’s quite clear to see the many problems that could be created if this piece of legislation was enacted.

Of course, after this was exposed, Kate Szostak, a staffer on the Banking Committee quickly tried to kill any doubts and/or concerns people had with the legislation:

“This is not a controversial provision or a new one. Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have supported it for months, and it has been included in the Administration’s budget proposal for years. This provision simply requires banks–not small businesses–to report sales transactions to the IRS each year and to merchants at the end of each day. It makes the tax system fair for everyone, without burdening small businesses and without putting consumers’ privacy rights at risk.”

With all due respect to Kate, this is indeed a very controversial provision that could greatly effect how business is done online.

For example, let’s say I sell 500 widgets on Ebay every month and at the end of each month, $20,000 or so is transferred into my bank account. Stop. That is basically what is going to be reported to the IRS and filed away under your EIN or SSN and it should be no surprise that they are going to be there at the end of the year waiting for you to pay taxes on it.

However, if you’re a business owner, there is much more to this equation than the IRS would be seeing. Nowhere in this reporting would Ebay or the IRS have any idea how much each of these widgets cost you. Sure, you might have had $20,000 transferred to your account, but what if you had to spend $19,500 on acquisition and shipping of the widgets?

This number has to first be deducted from the $20,000 before any accurate representation of income can be generated. When you tack on other things like operating costs, it’s even easier to see how the IRS is going to have skewed numbers.

I’m sure many of you are now asking, so what, you’ll report all of this on your tax forms and pay taxes based on that.

The reality is that even if this is the case, with the IRS having all of this data, they are going to be looking harder than ever for anyone that is cheating the system. Any discrepancy on either end could potentially throw up a red flag and lead to an audit. No matter what criteria they create, there is always going to be a discrepancy in numbers, simply because each small business operates in a different way, having different pricing structures, sales models, operating costs, exposure, etc.

With this legislation, I don’t see how the IRS would be able to operate without a major expansion, and that’s just to cover the oversight of this data. There are many other arguments that people have brought up over this legislation, including privacy concerns and other important logistics, but for some reason, some of our elected officials don’t want to bring this up for more debate and are hoping to end discussion of this in the next 48 hours.

So, that’s where we come in and help disseminate information exposing America’s #1 R.I.N.O., Senator Chuck Grassley.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here are some other bloggers that are also covering this topic, and have made excellent posts.

http://techliberation.com/2008/06/23/senate-housing-bill-to-require-collecting-of-online-payment-information/

http://blogs.courant.com/on_background/2008/06/credit-card-tracking-slipped-i.html

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2785

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/housing-bailout-bill-new-provision-report

http://osispeaks.com/

http://fetchingjen.blogspot.com/

http://www.oregonconservative.com

http://www.conservativerecord.com

We recently launched a brand-new JohnMcCain.com and want to invite you to visit our new website today. But first, we want to take a minute to say thank you for being a part of our online community. You are the engine that drives our online efforts, which have so far raised millions of dollars online, organized thousands of volunteers and spread John McCain’s message to your friends and family.

There is more work to be done and we’re excited to unveil a new website that will be the cornerstone of our online efforts. More importantly, we want to hear from you. After you’ve visited the new JohnMcCain.com please take a minute to complete a brief online survey to tell us what you think.

Working together, we’re confident the web will be an important tool to involve you in this campaign, to communicate our message, organize supporters and win in November. But we need your help – please visit the new JohnMcCain.com today, surf around and give us your feedback. Tell us what you like, what you don’t like and send us your ideas. More importantly, take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family with a personal invitation to visit our new website.

Thank you, as always, for your strong support for John McCain online. We look forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely,
The McCain 2008

Did anyone notice that nowhere in the email, or on the survey did they ask you for money? I can honestly say that of the hundreds of emails that I have received from various campaigns, this is one of the few that doesn’t have a fundraising ask in it.

Normally I would analyze this is being a wasted opportunity to raise some much needed money. However, this email does something that the McCain campaign hasn’t really been doing before, inviting people to be engaged with the campaigns website.

Now instead of asking for a cover charge to become involved with the campaign, all they are asking now is that you simply “join the conversation,” as David All would say.

I can honestly say that in terms of using email to engage supporters, this is probably the ‘best of McCain’ thus far.

If people open the email and take the survey, I’m certain that a vast majority of them will reach a new height in terms of their dedication to getting John McCain elected.

Furthermore, if this successful, this could be a good starting point for the McCain campaign to build an online model similar to Barack Obama, where you don’t ask for their money right away, but instead simply ask that they get involved. Once they’re in, asking them to invest $10, $20 or even $50 at a time becomes much easier, simply because they have already put so much time into the campaign.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Even though it’s already May, there are still many hot-races that haven’t even come close to moving into full swing.

While I find this extremely troubling for both parties, I find it to be most problematic for Republicans, simply because they are already heading into this election as the underdogs.

Awhile back, Time Magazine published what they thought were the top 10 Senate races in the 2008 election: Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire. I completely agree with this assessment and if the GOP wants to at least have some voting muscle in the Senate, they need to win these races.

This isn’t new information, but for some reason it seems that these top three campaigns haven’t even moved into full gear yet, even though there is only a little more than 6 months until the November election.

To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, here is just a glimpse into some of the things (primarily problems) I’ve noticed amongst the ‘top 3’ campaigns, focusing primarily on the Republican side.

Virginia – Jim Gilmore:

Problem: It wasn’t until about two weeks ago that I actually started receiving frequent updates from the campaign letting me know what was happening. However, even though I signed up to be a volunteer on multiple occasions, I have yet to receive any communications from the campaign providing me with opportunities to get involved.

Bigger Problem: Someone from Mark Warner’s campaign got back to me quite quickly with a variety of things that I can do to get involved with the campaign.

Side note: this is almost the exact same problem I’ve had with the McCain campaign; however the McCain campaign at least sends updates for volunteer opportunities.

This was a race that was once considered ‘too close to call,’ however many are now saying it’s leaning favorably towards a Democratic win. I think this can be changed, but not at the pace they’re currently moving.

Colorado – Bob Schaffer

Problem: Despite the fact of knowing that this is going to be an extremely tough race for a Republican to win, it appears that this campaign has done very little (almost nothing) in terms of marketing themselves on the internet.

Even though their race will be expensive, they don’t seem to understand that one of the first places people go to get information on their candidate is the candidate’s website.

This is usually a good thing, unless you’re Bob Schaffer.

Please click here to see Bob Schaffer’s website.

Now, click here to see his opponent, Mark Udall’s website.

To Bob Schaffer, or anyone else on his campaign: set up a meeting with David All, Joe Mansour and Patrick Ruffini… fast. Marketing and web-overhaul, priority #1.

Just to give you an idea of how the two candidate’s sites perform against each other, check out this chart.

Side note, here is a great blog in Colorado evaluating many of the details of this race. 

New Hampshire: John Sununu

Problem: Exactly the same problem that Bob Schaffer is having. Even though his site isn’t as bad, in comparison to his opponents, it’s lagging severely.

Please click here to view John Sununu’s site.

Now, click here to view his opponent, Jeanne Shaheen’s site.

If you looked at both of those sites, I’m sure that this graph doesn’t really surprise you.

While this is obviously pessimistic, I think that if they made some simple adjustments and paid attention to what was working for the left (particularly Barack Obama) and implemented that into their strategy, both the candidates and the party as a whole would be in a much better position heading into November.