The annual Politics Online conference is this week. This is definitely a conference for the sausage makers and is aimed at those working in nonprofit, government or political technology. When I first attended in 2006, this conference helped my thesis come together, so I’ve always been grateful for it.

As I sat through the sessions yesterday, something seemed off. It seemed…flat. The panels weren’t insightful, and I’d heard most of the case studies. Honestly, the energy felt deflated.

While the conference is nonpartisan, about 20% of attendees and panelists are right-of-center. I’m not complaining because up to this point, the best people were on the left. The developers and strategists that I wanted to see belonged to the other side of the aisle.

After I sat through the pre-lunch talk with Joe Trippi, it hit me how much the online situation has changed.

Trippi did a lot of really cool things…back in 2004. I highly recommend his book, The Revolution Won’t Be Televised, but now it’s part of history. It shouldn’t be viewed as a current strategy piece.

Over and over, he kept discussing MoveOn, Meetup and the resistance of the GOP to the web. He and the other speaker, Rod Martin from Paypal, were interesting, but I got the overall impression that not much had changed for Trippi since 2007. I wouldn’t discount his career since you can influence politics in DC from beyond the grave (i.e. Reagan, FDR and JFK), but it was sad.

When was the last time that MoveOn made the news? Oh, they still send emails. I’m on their list. But they’re formulaic and boring. Online email strategy has evolved (disclosure: email fundraising is primarily what I do professionally), and they seem stuck in the anti-Bush frame. How much longer will that message resound? At some point even MoveOn will need to move on.

Then there was the Q&A from the audience during various sessions.

Since the overwhelming majority of the audience were Democrats or left-leaning nonprofits, almost all of the questions surrounded the Obama election.

The Obama election? That was 17 months ago. In the online world, that’s practically a lifetime. Everything that can be studied has been analyzed and dissected.

Then it hit me. After years of self-flagellation and bemoaning (and I was one of the many bloggers doing the moaning), the right has actually achieved success on web. Note that I didn’t say Republicans, but the right. There are still pockets of resistance, especially among standing members in Congress and state legislatures. I’m not the only one to notice. Look at these stories at The Hill and The Weekly Standard.

Since 2008, conservatives have seen McDonnell, Brown and Tea Parties. All of which were fueled by the web.

The Bob McDonnell and Scott Brown campaigns expanded on lessons learned from the Obama campaign and took it to the next level. Just look at online ad spending. Obama’s people spent 4%. McDonnell spent 10%. (Correction: McDonnell spent 8%, Brown spent 10%.) Google is now advising all campaigns at least spend 10%.

Without the technologies that liberals and Democrats used in 2006 and 2008, the tea parties wouldn’t exist. Ironically, the liberal developers are the ones who gave those crazed masses their tool box.

This post isn’t to mock the left or proudly announce that we won. We haven’t, and we’re far from it. As Rod Martin declared, the web has made politics more and more volatile.

The internet embodies populist politics. Since populism swings back and forth from left to right depending on the economy, foreign policy, wars and other factors, our political cycle could resemble a roller coaster going forward.

In other words, the web is the tool of the angry and upset. In 2006 and 2008, BDS ruled the interwebs and motivated the folks agreeing with that message.

Now the tables have turned, and the formerly silent majority has literally taken to the streets.

I would argue that tea parties are slightly different. Polls show that 25% of Americans identify with those values. At no point in history has one-fourth of our population marched with liberal or progressive movements.

I would also argue that tea parties are the first truly grassroots movement that we’ve seen in decades. Grassroots movements are marked by chaotic order, widespread issues and are leaderless. Those are three attacks that the media has repeatedly made on tea partiers.

Yes, Obama had millions of small dollar donors. Yes, he got 53% of the vote, but most of them now disapprove of his performance. Further examination of his fundraising shows that traditional big dollar donors were the backbone of his election machine. It’s a nice Alinsky-esqe story to say that Obama appealed to the little guy–the $5 donor–but his muscle came from the established monied left.

The fate of Organizing for America serves as further evidence that the Obama campaign was just grass-washing. What happened to them? Much like MoveOn, when was the last time you heard from them? Even the overall netroots haven’t done much. The plot to infiltrate the April 15 tea parties bombed. What ever happened to the plan of getting OFA members to call talk radio?

:::grasshoppers chirping:::

While the left may have convinced themselves that they created the first “grassroots” energetic movement online, the evidence suggests that it was still a very top-down campaign that Democrats have always run. Now that the powerful are in charge, they can ignore the little people they leveraged to get there.

I saw this firsthand last fall. The project that I was working on was the subject of a high-profile story from an arm of Center for American Progress. Overnight, our hate mail quadrupled and our traffic certainly increased. However, when I drilled down and studied the blog posts that were complaining about us, I noticed that they all copied one of the major liberal blogs, primarily Think Progress. And by copy, I literally mean copy. We got hundreds of hits from small bloggers who cut and pasted the Think Progress post.

I had never seen anything like it on the right. Almost all of the posts lacked attribution. I think this example highlights the very hierarchical nature of the netroots that is symptomatic of the entire left.

But what about the success stories on the right? The Politics Online conference did highlight those. As I listened to the the case studies, I realized that I had already heard them. Through sheer desperation, the right has organically built ways to communicate. Blogs such as The Next Right, weekly events like Heritage’s Blogger Briefing and annual conferences like Americans for Prosperity’s RightOnline communicate activities and educate members about emerging technologies.

Last year, I taught a couple of sessions at RightOnline and was shocked to see 80 year-old grandmas in the audience. They recognized that technology had changed, and they as individuals, needed to change in order for the conservative movement to win.

The morning after election day 2008, the establishment also started listening. We know that Red State has become influential on the Hill, and CPAC has done a great job of incorporating digital media and bloggers into the conference. Also, The Heritage Foundation has integrated digital media into every aspect of their activities. Their hard work should be applauded. Like their policies or not, their work is always imaginative. Do you get much more old-school conservative establishment than The Heritage Foundation and CPAC?

A telling comment at Politics Online captures the state of the liberal netroots. During a panel on social media apps, an audience member asked what it would take for more people to embrace smart phones. Since the next wave of technology is mobile, it’s dependent on individual users to voluntarily opt-in.

The panelist replied, “subsidized smart phones.”

That’s right! In order for the left to reach the next level, the government needs to subsidize smart phone adoption for the average tax payer. Unlike adoption on social networks, which only required a computer and an internet connection, mobile adoption requires the average user going to AT&T or Verizon and forking over $100 or more a month to access Facebook on the road.

I was floored. Cost is an issue, and I hate how phones are attached to carriers. But expecting the government to subsidize smart phones so that someone under the poverty line can become the Mayor of Taco Bell on FourSquare is too much.

This is another area where the right may have an advantage. Since polls show that tea party members make more money, they’re more likely to adopt new technology and use smart phones.

With recent court decisions making a national broadband plan and Net Neutrality a giant question mark, I think momentum has finally shifted right. This isn’t accidental. Conservatives at every level, from executives at think tanks to frustrated mommybloggers, have gotten involved and fought to get here.

As I mentioned earlier, we still have a tremendous amount of work ahead. If Republicans are lucky in November and regain control of both Houses, they need to enact swift fiscal reform and dramatically cut spending and taxes. Conservatives have the message, but the biggest question remains–has the GOP learned?

Yes, that Alan Grayson.

Mrs. Sullivan is exactly the type of woman that I’m always hoping will run for office. She’s a staunch conservative, a Christian and a homeschooling mother of four.

Calling herself a “defending mother,” Mrs. Sullivan said, “We need conservative women in congress who can multitask with common sense. We need watchmen to say no. Moms are good at saying no.”

If the treatment of Jim Bunning is any sign, we definitely need more men and women who can say no in Congress.

Going into 2010, it’s exciting to see a groundswell of grassroots candidates running. They’re distinctly different than the typical people who run for office. After working in DC for a number of years now, it is almost strange to encounter them. While talking with Mrs. Sullivan, I asked how fundraising was going. She replied that, “DC people always ask about fundraising, but is that the most important thing?”

I had to admit that I was taken aback. As hard as I try to stay un-Beltway, it creeps into your soul. That’s another reason why we need more candidates like Mrs. Sullivan. Even people who purposely try to avoid becoming part of the system end up doing so.

As we chatted, Mrs. Sullivan shared that she had made the decision to run only dif her entire family was on board. After discussing it, her 14-year-old son was reluctant. They decided to take additional time for consideration, and the son went on a missions trip. When he returned, he started reading a book that a friend had recommended. By that time, the family was once again sitting down to decide if an election was in their future.

Mrs. Sullivan shared that the book completely changed her son’s outlook. After praying about it, he knew that it wasn’t right for his mom to miss this opportunity if God was opening the door. She started to tear up while telling me this.

As I sat on Blogger’s Row typing, Mrs. Sullivan’s story took on a personal turn. I asked what the book was. I’ve worked with teen boys. Not many books change their lives.

“In a Pit with a Lion on a Snowy Day,” she replied.

My jaw dropped, and I stopped talking. In shock, I looked up and said, “My pastor wrote that book!”

Surprised, she asked a few details about it. I told her that I attend National Community Church and Pastor Mark Batterson wrote that book several years ago.

The interview went from talking about her race to sharing how much this book had influenced her son. I told her a little about NCC and promised to share the story with Pastor Mark. She was excited and said something that only Believers can understand, “It wasn’t a coincidence that God brought us here to talk about the race.”

That evening, I excitedly got to church. As a hospitality co-leader, it is my job to make sure that everyone is welcome and has bulletins, chairs set up, information available and tithe collected. I serve on the team that makes sure that the service goes smoothly, and I love it. Working in the background to make sure that everything gets done has always been my major gift.

Normally, the evening flies by, and I’m running like crazy. (Church also doubles as a cardio session for me.) Normally, I don’t get a chance to talk to Pastor Mark except to wave and say hi. That Saturday, he walked up while I was discussing something with Pastor Ross, the campus pastor at Ebenezer’s. I seized the opportunity to share the afternoon’s experiences with him and saw him light up with the story that his book had helped a 14-year-old boy. He asked for the family’s information so that he could follow up.

To be perfectly clear, NCC stays apolitical. As a church that meets on Capitol Hill, you have to. I may be a staunch conservative, but I do believe that Democrats can be godly Christians. I know Democrats who are better Christians than many Republicans.*  Pastor Mark and the church leadership do an amazing job staying above the fray on political issues. NCC is a refreshing escape from the polarizing and often depressing issues we deal with each day. (I’m not sure what I would do if my church were political. I need a break from it all.) He was excited to hear that his book had helped a 14-year-old boy, not that In a Pit is influencing conservative politics (although both sides could probably benefit from reading his books).

I write this to 1) highlight an awesome candidate like Mrs. Sullivan. 2) encourage other women to run for office and 3) share how God orchestrates strange meetings. Out of the 10,000 people at CPAC, what are the odds that Mrs. Sullivan would meet someone who knew the author of the book that helped her decide to run for public office?

Take a few minutes to learn more about Patricia Sullivan. We need more people like her in Congress. Moe Lane at Red State did an interview with her during CPAC.

Also Smart Girl Nation interviewed Mrs. Sullivan last year.

*Sometimes I wonder what the New Testament would have looked like if Jesus had come to DC and not Israel. Hypocrisy and evil exist on both sides of the political aisle. Political systems are designed by humans and are therefore imperfect, but I do believe capitalism and democracy are the best systems that help the most people at once.)

It wasn’t because Ron Paul will be the nominee in 2012. The odds are overwhelmingly against him.

It’s not because the majority of attendees were supporters. They weren’t. It was fairly split among a lot of different candidates or undecideds.

Ron Paul won the straw poll because two organizations manipulated it.

Dr. Paul is successful because he appeals to a fanatical base of supporters. They are sizable, but they aren’t the majority of conservatives, nor are they a majority of Tea Partiers. They have two extremely well-organized and motivated organizations, Campaign for Liberty (C4L) and Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). Having worked with a number of YAL chapters, the individuals drawn to those organizations will walk through fire for Dr. Paul.

I’ve witnessed first-hand what these groups will go through. Think about the Paul moneybombs and countless activism events. Do those reflect the majority of conservatives out there? Absolutely not. It should not surprise anyone that there was likely a concerted, organized effort to manipulate the outcome of the poll.

To understand CPAC, you have to understand the set up. The Marriott is huge with multiple levels. At every single escalator and staircase, Ron Paul supporters were bombarding you with information. By day three, it was obnoxious, especially for people like me who were busy running around and working.

You also need to understand how the straw poll is collected. CPAC places poll locations throughout the conference on Day 1 and Day 2. The actual instrument is lengthy and can take 10 minutes or so to complete. Note that the poll is completely self-selective. The people who take it are the ones who are either eager to share their opinion on the 2012 race or have the time to take it.

As I’ve written numerous times, I have no idea who I will support in 2012. I also didn’t have much free time on Day 1 and 2, when the surveys were collected. When I went to take the poll on Day 3, it had closed. How many people were like me and simply forgot to take it? We’ll never know.

What you’ve not seen reported in the media is the actual number of participants in the poll. There were around 10,000 registered attendees, yet only 2,395 people volunteered to participate in the poll. Barely 25% of attendees participated in the poll! Of those 2,395 people, only 31% supported Dr. Paul. That breaks down to around 743 votes. 743 people out of 10,000 is hardly worth mentioning.

While I agree with Patrick Ruffini that this is a good sign that younger people are motivated for conservative/libertarian causes and that the model of C4L and YAL should be replicated throughout the movement, it does not show that Dr. Paul is the leader of the conservative movement.

The media is obsessed with declaring that someone is the leader in order to fixate on that person and destroy his/her credibility. They want it to be Rush or Palin because those are already polarizing figures. Dr. Paul would be nearly as good because of the fringe movement that surrounds him. It’s easier to silence the uprising of Americans when they are painted as far-right loonies.

Please understand that I respect Dr. Paul. I agree with him on most subjects. The issues of foreign policy and the military are my two biggest objections. This post is not to tear down the efforts of C4L or YAL. I know many people involved with those campaigns, and they have my respect and admiration. However, take the Paul victory with a grain of salt. When you combine low participation with a group of highly-mobilized, highly-connected volunteers, it is possible to manipulate the results.

Via Feministing and Broadsheet, I watched this video that the Daily Caller put together. Not only did it feature several of my former co-workers, but it was also silly. The premise was dumb, yet the women interviewed tried to explain why they were there.

No where in the video did the women say that their reason for attending was “boys, boys, boys” as Tracy Clarke-Flory alludes. Actually, if you listen to the video, the majority of the women are attending for work. The college students articulate that they are attending to learn about the issues and support candidates.

Even in the twisted world of feminism, I thought learning about issues and supporting candidates was supported. Oh, silly me. I forgot that different rules apply to conservatives. We’re supposed to shut up and pretend we don’t exist.

Oh crazy feminists, get over yourselves and do the math. CPAC proactively reaches out to college students with steep discounts on ticket prices. Traditionally 50% or more of the attendees  are college students. Since more women are now matriculating than men…connect the dots. Also, attendance was up 20% overall this year with at least 10,000 people registering.

I realize that this this is difficult to swallow since it proves:

1. CPAC, the representation of all that is evil to the universe of liberals, is growing. 10,000 is a lot for any conference on any subject or political ideology.

2. Women are actually conservative, including college-aged women.

3. Conservative women aren’t ashamed of being attractive.

4. With more and more conservative organizations targeting women and inviting them to attend events like CPAC, it’s hardly surprising that they would show up.

It really is amusing to read through liberal blogs and newspapers and see what the left pulls out of CPAC. It’s like they attended a completely different conference than the one that I saw.

I think I make it pretty clear that I have zero respect for both Jessica Valenti and Meghan McCain here, but Jessica really out did herself with saying “just when you think CPAC can’t get any creepier.” Really? Just Really? This video freaked you out that much? With all the actual evil in the world done to women, those women at CPAC are the worst?

For the remainder of the week, I’ll be camped out a CPAC 2010. It’s awesome to be back. The conference last year encouraged me to dive back into the blogosphere. After a number of years, I had just stopped blogging completely. CPAC 2009 motivated me to get back into the fight.

This year, I’m here for work. It’s nice to have access to more events and receptions. My magic lanyard gets me into nearly everything. I’m also having fun sitting at blogger row. It’s almost pointless to tweet since nearly everyone I follow is here.

CPAC 2010 morning audience

Matt Lewis’ post at Politics Daily made me remember my own Rush story. Has anyone ever tried collecting them? Most conservatives owe something to Rush. Liberals think they know why they hate him but are generally hard pressed to come up with an actual reason.

I’m a Rush Baby. Perhaps, I’m even a graduate of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. I started listening in 1991 shortly after the Gulf War. I was in the third grade and homeschooled. In the mornings, I would hurry and finish school work (homeschoolers are only required to do four hours of classroom work a day), and then we’d spend the afternoon doing an educational activity and listening to Rush. In those days, he still had theme music for his updates, and my mom made me leave the room whenever a condom update came on!

I’ve always loved politics declared myself a Republican in the first grade during the 1988 election (I revoked that party membership at some point in 2006).  It wasn’t until we started listening to Rush that I developed any sense of what conservatism was. I owe a lot of dinner table discussions and understanding of politics to the Maha Rushi. When my parents decided to enroll me in a Christian school the following year, my main objection was that I was required to wear a skirt every day, and I couldn’t listen to Rush. When I went off to a public university and later to one of the most liberal colleges in America for graduate school, I was frequently questioned if I could remain a conservative. “Nah.” I would replied. “I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh. I’m hardwired to be a conservative.”

Going to CPAC this past February and seeing Rush’s First Address to the Nation (without a Teleprompter!) was simply awesome. I’ll never forget the energy and optimism in the room that night. Despite facing the early horrors of the Obama Administration, Rush reminded us that conservatism always triumphs. Our philosophy stretches back centuries. People will always crave freedom and fight for it, and while capitalism isn’t perfect, it’s the best system that we have. Americans may stray from time to time, but we always return to the roots of conservatism.

Watch the first 10 minutes and tell me if you can’t respect the message he is giving. Much of the liberal hate is media caricature and stereotyping. Liberals simply don’t understand that conservatism provides the best opportunities for hope and change, not expanded government programs or out-of-control spending. We give people choices, freedom and control of their own destinies. That’s real hope, not an individual with a shiny logo.

Liberals may hate Rush, but he did a lot to democratize politics. Prior to him, all we had was the nightly news and what a small group of gatekeepers allowed us to hear. At least Rush was honest about his bias, and he had time for longer political analysis. He was the first form of alternative media. Bloggers and pundits on both sides of the aisle should appreciate the trail that he blazed. I shudder to think of what the Obama administration would get away with if the watchdog vigilance of talk radio and bloggers weren’t around.

I’ve heard a lot from El Rushbo in the last 18 years. Between Twitter, blogs and even a Free Republic thread (haven’t been there in a long time!), I was reminded of Dan’s Bake Sale, Rush’s TV Show and his line of men’s ties. It seems that most conservatives have some tie to Rush. So Dittoheads, what’s yours?

*Please do not write hateful or disgusting comments about Rush. Follow the simple rule from kindergarten: if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. Tonight liberals proved that class, character and respect are completely void from the left side of the political spectrum. Don’t whine about Ted Kennedy. There was nothing like the vileness that emerged from the left tonight.

I keep seeing examples of women who were inspired to enter the political debate because of Sarah Palin. Tabitha Hale and Smart Girl Politics are two well-known examples. Remember that young girl who MSNBC attacked? She’s a 17-year-old blogger who was inspired by Palin. Conservative Girl With a Voice is another example. Smart Girl Nation also profiles Patricia Sullivan who was inspired by Palin to run for congress in Florida.

Why? What is it about Sarah Palin that which resounds with so many women on the right and infuriates people on the left beyond comprehension? What has motivated women on the right to suddenly mobilize? Is Palin the link?

This is one of those trends/phenomenon that is ripe for study by academics. Has there ever been a situation when a survey wrote itself so easily? Focus group participants would be fighting to get in.  Oh wait. That can’t happen. It’s up to bloggers and those on the right to explain this one.

This is an issue with a number of levels that should be explained in much further detail. The Palin Phenomenon is a complex topic that crosses many issues — feminism, gender roles, identity politics, faith,  GOP establishment, working mothers, elites vs. provencials, sexism in politics and the media and Beltway politics vs. grassroots — the list could continue. There’s no shortage of commentary. There’s a terrible shortage of understanding and study.

The role of women on the right has intrigued me for years. Unlike many of the examples above, I’ve been mesmerized by politics since the first grade. Growing up as a conservative female has been an interesting adventure. I never quite felt at home anywhere. I knew that I didn’t fit in with liberal feminists. I was too religious and pro-life for that. Plus, I liked men and had no problem with traditional gender roles. I also didn’t feel completely at home within Republican politics. I knew that we should rise above the shallowness of identity politics, but where were the conservative women like me? A political movement should not be built on labels and stereotypes, but it would be nice to see someone who I could identify with occasionally appear. Was I alone? Did other women agree with conservatives but not feel included?

Then I ended up taking a job with an organization that had adopted many feminist beliefs in their mission, and I didn’t know what had hit me. I toyed with the concept of “conservative feminism” for a while. I’m not the only one. A number of other blogs and organizations support that niche. At CPAC last year, I decided to take a more active role. I had just seen Palin burst on the scene. My suspicions were confirmed that other women like me were out there. I ended up stopping by the Eagle Forum booth and purchasing Phyllis Schafly’s Feminist Fantasies. It was a good starting point, but it didn’t answer all of my questions. What did feminism actually teach that was so offensive? That led me down another rabbit hole that I”m currently exploring, particularly over at Fourth Wave Woman. Even among educated women working in politics, not many people know what feminism actually advocates and how successful it’s been at infiltrating our society.

Somehow Palin seems to be the catalyst behind this. Is this a short-lived moment or the beginnings of a fourth wave of feminism as Rachel Campus Duffy writes (H/T Republican Women of the North)? Will conservative women take a more prominenent role in conservative politics? At what point will feminists and women’s studies admit that something is going on and examine it?

Right now, there are too many opinions, too many knee-jerk reactions and a dismal lack of examination of what’s going on beyon the latest blog post or headline in the media. Palin is forcing society to answer questions that have been boiling below the surface for too long. When all the Tea Parties are over, and Obama is hopefully out of the White House, what will happen?

First of all, Michael Steele is an idiot for saying something like that on national TV. He’s been RNC chair for barely a month. How incompetent do you have to be to insult one of the biggest voices on your side? I supported Steele, so I’m disappointed in his mistake. This goes beyond gaffe and just shows that he has no grasp on the opinions of the conservative grassroots. I know that he’s a Maryland Republican but hasn’t anyone briefed him on just how big Rush’s audience is?

Rush is not the de facto leader. In fact, conservatives really don’t have one. At the core, we’re individuals. While we agree on basics such as limited government, fiscal responsibility, liberty, and traditional families as the basic unit of society, we don’t really need to file lock-step behind a leader. We don’t need to eagerly worship some Messiah-like dapper figure who will elegantly lead us towards a socialized economy.

Conservative grassroots are truely grassroots. We start from the ground up. We’re not bankrolled by European millionares with an agenda or media giants such as Oprah. Because we’re truly grassroots-oriented, it’ll take a while to find a leader. It’s very likely that we won’t have one until 2012. Is that a bad thing? Why must a very diverse movement look to one person for guidance. Oops! I forgot. We don’t have the Obama-savior to guide us.

During Rush’s speech, I sat there wondering how the media would try to frame it. I should have figured that the media wouldn’t actually debate Rush on any of the points that he made. They aren’t willing to engage conservatives in a debate over ideas or how Obama’s proposed policies radically alter the shape of of economy and society. No, nothing of merit would be discussed. Instead, they argue over who the leader of the Conservative party is.

Misdirection was always the best trick that the media had.