As readers of Big Government know, late last Friday, ALG issued a press release claiming it had received an offensive e-mail from Dateline NBC producer, Jane Stone. Within hours, the Rightroots had been mobilized and the story when viral.

Known as the “Bite me Jew boy” e-mail, both Ms. Stone and NBC were pilloried by the Right. Throughout the weekend, Matthew Vadum chronicled the exchange of statements and press releases here on the BigGovernment.com website.

So Now What?

It’s been five days and ALG has yet to provide indisputable evidence to prove its claim and NBC continues to back Ms. Stone’s assertion she never sent the e-mail in question.

In making its claim, ALG gambled its credibility with activists and media contacts to help push a story that increasingly looks like a hoax. In at least 2 press releases, ALG very publicly accused a respected media professional for a major media outlet of an explicit act of anti-Semitism; a charge that if true would damage her reputation and destroy her career.

Collectively, the political Right advanced the story and stirred the pot after assurances from ALG that they had their facts straight and had done their due diligence. To date, it appears they had neither.

There are several plausible scenarios, none of which seem to justify a rush to mobilize the troops and publish multiple press releases. These scenarios could include:

SCENARIO 1.) Jane Stone actually wrote an inexplicably offensive e-mail and then followed that moment of stupidity with an outrageous lie to her employer, who then risked the reputation of a major network with an unequivocal denial on behalf of a racist employee. UNLIKELY

SCENARIO 2.) A rogue individual at ALG duped their ALG colleagues by intercepting an e-mail received from NBC, edited the e-mail, and passed it along as legitimate. ALG management then used the same individual or an otherwise unqualified source to complete their “due diligence” efforts. POSSIBLE

SCENARIO 3.) ALG received a legitimate e-mail from Ms. Stone’s Blackberry, decided to edit the text of the e-mail, and began the process of generating publicity with an outrageous and wholly fabricated accusation of racism. The story goes viral, screenshots don’t satisfy the skeptics, and ALG is asked to produce detailed header and server records that do not exist. I PRAY THIS DIDN’T HAPPEN

SCENARIO 4.) Someone used Ms. Stone’s Blackberry and sent the e-mail without her knowledge. ALG received the e-mail, did its due diligence, and published its claim. Ms. Stone denied the claims made by ALG, confident that she did not send the e-mail in question from her Blackberry. PROBABLE

I don’t pretend to know which, if any, of these scenarios is accurate, but as I tweeted shortly after the story broke, “Someone at NBC or ALG is LYING. When they show the e-mail in question (w/ the complete headers), we will know who.”

Yesterday, I spoke with the folks over at ALG and was told they have no plans to release additional information. And while the release of more information could resolve this issue, they continue to stand behind a goofy screenshot conspicuously missing to only real evidence that could validate their claim. In doing so, they have demonstrated a willingness to behave exactly like those on the left who use baseless accusations of racism to advance their political agenda. By not publishing complete e-mail header information, it also looks like they have a disregard for the truth, the inability to conduct meaningful due diligence, and/or an ignorance of the basic technologies involved.

It is the responsibility of those in each faction of a political movement to hold its own accountable.

Anti-Semitism (and racism) is a serious matter and should never be used by any political organization as a tool in its communications toolbox. As Right and Center-right political activists, our credibility on this issue is at stake when one of our own engages in distasteful tactics. As such, it is incumbent on the Right to leverage its influence and demand ALG produce real proof of their allegations. When and if such proof is not forthcoming, I hope we all use our resources to rebuke ALG with the same level of outrage we had when the original story first broke.

I hope I’m wrong about ALG, but my gut is telling me we’ve been played. What do you think?

The beauty of some of our nation’s founding documents is a relative brevity that has allowed the ideas to endure the test of time. Of course, had the Founding Fathers had Twitter accounts, and been limited to only 140 characters per tweet, perhaps our Bill of Rights would have looked very different.

Imagine @JamesMadison tweeting @ThomasJefferson…

“Penned BofR. Ref’d VA Dec of Rights & Magna Carta. Adams & Hancock onboard. Hamilton & P. Henry pissed. LOL. Ratify ASAP.”

Preamble
“Constitution intended to: better union, establish justice, insure tranquility, common defense, promote general welfare, & secure liberty.”

1st Amendment
“Congress shall make no law for or against religion; or abridging freedom of speech, press, assembly, or petitioning gov’t with grievances.”

2nd Amendment
“A well regulated Militia, necessary 4 the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

3rd Amendment
“No soilder shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house w/o consent of owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.”

4th Amendment
“One’s body, home, papers, & effects secure against search & seizure. Warrants can be issued under oath and with probable cause.”

5th Amendment
“Trials 4 capital crimes req. indictment by Grand Jury. No 2X jeopardy. Can’t testify against self. Due process. No confiscation w/o comp.”

6th Amendment
“Accused shall have speedy & public trial w/ impartial jury, the assistance of counsel, and ability to confront and provide witnesses.”

7th Amendment
“In lawsuits >$20, preserve right of trial by jury & no fact tried by the jury shall be re-examined by another Court of the United States.”

8th Amendment
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

9th Amendment
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

10th Amendment
“Powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.”

And subsequent amendments…

11th Amendment
“Judicial power of the U.S. shall not extend to any suit prosecuted against one state by another state, or by citizens of a foreign state.”

12th Amendment
“States shall each have ballots for pres. & vice-pres. States certify results & send to Congress. Ties sorted out by quorum in Senate.”

13th Amendment
“Slavery is bad except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party was duly convicted.”

14th Amendment
“Citizen = born or naturalized in U.S. Due process. Equal protection. Reps based on state pop. Traitors can’t hold office. Debt 4 war = okay.”

15th Amendment
“Right of citizens to vote shall not be abridged based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

16th Amendment
“Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes w/o apportionment among the states, and w/o regard to any census.”

17th Amendment
“2 senators from each state elected for 6 yr. terms. Temporary appointments by state governors used to fill vacancies.”

18th Amendment
“The manufacture, sale, import, export, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within the U.S. for beverage purposes is prohibited.”

19th Amendment
“The right of the citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

20th Amendment
“Term of president ends @ noon 01/20. Terms of reps & sens ends @ noon 01/03. If new pres dies before start of term, vice-pres takes office.”

21st Amendment
“The 18th Amendment was a bad idea and is hereby repealed.”

22nd Amendment
“A person can’t be elected president more than twice. Can serve max of 2 terms + 2 yrs. of a term in which one wasn’t actually elected.”

23rd Amendment
“D.C. is the seat of the federal gov’t. Residents get to vote, but not enjoy the rights of a state.”

24th Amendment
“The right of citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be abridge because of failure to pay taxes.”

25th Amendment
“If pres can’t fulfill term, VP becomes pres. Speaker and Pres pro tempore of Senate can declare pres unfit. 2/3 congress must concur.”

26th Amendment
“No law, varying the comp for the services of the Sens and Reps, shall take effect, until an election of Reps shall have intervened.”

DISCLAIMER: I did not go to law school and make no claims of being a constitutional scholar. Modifications to the above are welcome.

Yes… and no.

One of the problems conservatives have is defining themselves as a coalition. When conservatives don’t define themselves, others do… often incorrectly. American Conservatives should not be afraid to define American conservatism. If the risks are bad press coverage, alienation, and election day loses… they already have that. Are conservatives afraid their branding is going to get worse if they define themselves with a litmus test? In the eyes of the media (the conduit to mainstream Americans), I am not sure that’s possible.

Conservatives are never going to be as liberal as liberals. Their weakness during recent elections is in part derived from their own attempt to be all things to all people. Voters usually know when they smell a rat. A disingenuous candidate who preaches limited government and lower taxes at one fundraiser is not credible when he argues on behalf of expanded social programs and his piece of the stimulus package at another.

Liberal-lite positioning — “I’m for limited government and fiscal responsibility, but I am willing to give you, the voter, anything your little heart desires” is not a winning strategy.  It is a short-sighted, election day loser and damages the conservative brand over the long-term.

Also, is there some definitive study that says, “litmus tests are bad”? I recall the phrase being adopted by the media in a political context with respect to SCOTUS nominees and the abortion issue. Why would a clear set of political values used by conservatives to define conservatives be a bad thing? If clear branding is good enough for Apple to differentiate itself from a PC, why is it not appropriate to apply those same marketing principles to the conservative values?

Finally, political values are not the same as political issues. We should not confuse the notion of defining conservatism with a clear set of political values as the same thing as defining a Republican platform around a specific set of political issues. The former is a set of beliefs embraced by voters who typically vote for Republican candidates. The latter is a label for political party that broadly supports candidates on the right side of the political spectrum and advocates on behalf of specific political issues.

So I say, create a litmus test… how could it possibly makes things worse?

Last week the California Republican Party held a “Technology Summit” that represented what I hope is the first of many conversations about the role of technology in campaigns, party building, GOTV efforts, fundraising, and communication. I was asked to speak for a few minutes and used the time to help the audience viualize the difference between the “web 1.0″ and “web 2.0″. As a student of new media who actively learns about and embraces new technology, I realize we are already taking our first significant steps in the the era of “web 3.0″. However, in the world of Republican politics… first things first.

My brief talk included two slides (left and below). The first slide highlights the overlapping and interdependent nature of web 2.0’s tools of communication. It contrasts those tools with traditional media tools like television, radio, and direct mail.

The second slide built upon an understanding that numerous communications tools are now available — none a silver bullet — that allow organizations like political parties to impact the national dialogue. Not long ago, producers, editors, and publishers were the gatekeepers to traditional media. They determined who received the coverage… how much, and how fair. Today, organizations have options. They can use tactics that embrace the MSM to reach large audiences while also deploying tactics that focus on narrow slivers of new media niches made possible by the wonderful convergence of technology and politics.

I am constantly looking for better ways to communicate the relationship of new media tools to those who are just now dipping their toes in the water. Fortunately, I StumbledUpon the featured image in this post. I like it because it is clear, comprehensive, and easy to understand. I hope these visuals are helpful.

While at Red County, we would use the service to stream editorial content from the contributors of our 30+ blog communities. I would often augment the feed with personal comments to keep things a bit more interesting. Unfortunately, unlike my close personal friends, @aplusk (1,825,141), @ryanseacrest (1,037,533), and @oprah (1,019,191), our followers numbered in the thousands, not millions. Regardless, Twitter was a very valuable tool in our new media toolbox.

The Proliferation of Hashtags

There are thousands of hashtags, each of which help to better define a tweet and the intended audience of that tweet. According to the Twitter Fan Wiki site, hashtags were popularized during the San Diego forest fires in 2007 when Nate Ritter used the hashtag “#sandiegofire” to identify his updates related to the disaster. My first recollection of using hastags in a meaningful way for political purposes was during last year’s #DONTGO movement (www.dontgomovement.com), during which the #DONTGO hashtag was used to focus public attention on leaders of the U.S. Congress who preferred to adjourn for recess rather than finish working on important energy legislation. Use of that specific hashtag has diminished, but it spawned a movement and it did engage new activists.

Since then, those who participate in political discussions on Twitter have many hashtags from which to choose. #POLITICS is the most broad. Other examples include #TEAPARTY (discussion about the Tea Party movement), #HHRS (Hugh Hewitt Radio Show), #ICON (independent conservative). However, one of the most prevalent in conservative circles seems to be #TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter). While not particularly intuitive, its growth seems to coincide with conservatives flocking to new media in the wake of the 2008 election.

There seems to be some dispute over who started #TCOT, but it was made popular through the efforts of Rob Neppell (@rneppell), founder of The Truth Laid Bear and proprietor of Kithbridge. Rob is ubiquitous in conservative new media circles and he deserves a ton of credit for helping the political Right embrace new media.

Like most things in new media, that which gains traction and becomes moderately successful is quickly spoiled by the mad rush of spammers, self-promoters, and profiteers to get onboard the next big thing. In my opinion, #TCOT is suffering from this phenomenon and its relevance is slowly being diminished.

#RIGHT: Inclusive & Intuitive

My frustration with #TCOT led to my suggestion to friends that #RIGHT would be an outstanding alternative. It is broad and inclusive. It is highly intuitive. It is not tied to a party or personality. It is not likely to be co-opted or commercialized. Most importantly, it clearly and concisely states to Twitter pros and newbies alike, the nature of the content with which it is associated.

Of course, this is not a competition. I am simply advocating on behalf of one hashtag over another for the reasons cited above. People can use Twitter however they like, write whatever they want, and tag their tweets however they feel is the most appropriate. As I write this, the Obama administration is still focused on taking over the auto and financial industries. Until their mission is accomplished and they have time to turn their attention to Twitter, the service should remain a fairly pure example of a free marketplace. Good ideas will rise to the top. Weak ideas will not.

I would welcome your thoughts on the matter, either here or via a Twitter discussion. Feel free to follow me at @scottwgraves. For more information about Twitter and hashtags, visit the Twitter Fan Wiki page here. For a definition of specific Twitter hashtags, or to establish a new one, visit, @tagalus.

My wife and I happened to be watching the broadcast live and our first reaction was we were watching the seeds of a firestorm. While the Miss USA’s owner, Donald Trump, says otherwise, it is likely her answer cost her the crown.

Our second reaction was that she had just hit the jackpot. By staying true to her beliefs when the pressure was on and the outcome in the balance, she won the hearts of millions of fans. As a runner-up who has demonstrated both character and a strong sense of self, Carrie Prejean has more opportunity to chart her own course than if she had been politically correct and won.

Read Andrew’s excellent (and humorous) analysis of the impact of Ms. Prejean’s courageous answer and the potential backlash of the offensive responses by the political Left.

Enjoy…

BREITBART: We’re Here, We’re Queer and We’re Hypocrites
From the Washington Times
Monday, April 27, 2009

Greetings, from a poolside cabana at a trendy boutique hotel in Santa Monica. Oh, how I love these overpriced overnight stays. The sleek designs. The ambient music. The uniformly attractive and stylishly dressed young staffs. The plush beds with sheets of an absurdly high thread count. Weird faucets and weirder sinks. I bask in the attention to detail. W is my favorite letter. Philippe Starck is a personal hero.

As a realist, I’ve built into my mindset that the majority heterosexual population is less than exclusively responsible for creating this and countless other high-end consumer and artistic experiences. Plus, I have a ton of wonderful gay friends – even ones “married” and with children. If gay activists created “A Day Without a Gay” (as they promoted Dec. 10 of last year), I’d be the first to cry “uncle” – even before Cher. So, accordingly, I make philosophical and political accommodations. I’m – as the MTV generation says – “gay-friendly

But lately, color me “gay perturbed.” “Gay-friendly,” a term once manifestly redundant, now seems a glaring contradiction.

The gay political-activist community – in my view, a small minority of left-wing agitators acting on behalf of the whole – has been on a binge of bad public behavior, and I’m not referring to the bare-buttocked-chaps look and inappropriately placed sparklers during “pride” parades.

Read the rest of the article here.

Dear Red County Editors, Contributors, and Readers -

Today begins a new chapter for Red County. Along with a newly redesigned website, Red County has ushered in a new team to build on the success of the past 3 years and take the Red County brand to the next level. I am hopeful these changes will accelerate the company’s growth and make a meaningful contribution to the political landscape ahead of the 2010 election cycle.

Part of this process includes my decision to step down from managing the daily operations of Red County so I can focus my attention on helping others implement the tools of new media to advance the traditional American values we share. In the months ahead, I look forward to working with some of the finest talent in online development and some of the most innovative thinkers in new media. I will be consulting, educating, speaking, and developing. My online development firm will be actively engaged with clients eager learn about and embrace the tools of new media. I will also be deeply involved in a non-partisan effort to increase government transparency and accountability in the state of California. The political climate is ripe and the opportunities abundant to work on meaningful projects with outstanding people.

The last three years have been a blur. We started Red County as a high quality glossy magazine tailored to reach the influencers in the Southern California’s center-right political community. While the magazine featured many outstanding articles leading up to a pivotal election in American history, it was the proliferation of Red County’s online blog community that garnered the attention and captured our imagination. In 2008, the print edition went the way of so many other print publications, but the online community flourished.

This success did not occur in a vacuum. I am extremely proud of the efforts of 42 localized Red County communities, nearly 30 editors,  and a blogpen of several hundred editorial contributors. What began as a traditional media print publication has deftly transformed itself into a well-respected, conservative new media community. I am thankful to every single person who contributed their ideas, money, talent, enthusiasm, and hard work.

Moving forward, I will be publishing regular updates for Red County readers on the impact of new technology on the political landscape. In the meantime, feel free to offer feedback about the ongoing efforts of Red County, make inquiries about potential consulting engagements, or find out more about my upcoming projects. Please visit my personal website at www.scottgraves.com or send me an email at scott@scottgraves.com.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Fight on!

Scott W. Graves

WEBSITE: www.scottgraves.com
FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/scottwgraves
TWITTER: twitter.com/scottwgraves
E-MAIL: scott@scottgraves.com

Fortunately, the talk of “nationalizing” banks, policies mandating “reasonable” executive compensation, effort to re-introduce government health care, and the passage of a “stimulus package” which allocates ungodly amounts of taxpayer money on pork projects serve to reinforce the notion that the Democrats generally gravitate to big government socialism. This is obvious to well-informed conservatives. It is beginning to become more clear to the average American.

It is with this political backdrop that I eagerly await the forthcoming eruption when Democrats subversively re-introduce the failed “Fairness Doctrine“.

For those unfamiliar with this black mark on American history, the “Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.”

To most Americans, this flies directly in the face of their limited understanding of the First Amendment which very simply states,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

No amount of nuanced, smooth-talking, feel-good Clintonesque language from the Messiah himself will veil the fact that Democrats would be trying to use their power to squash free speech; specifically, the free speech of the political right who has has dominated the airwaves of talk radio for nearly 20 years. I believe any attempt to establish government oversight of political free speech and commentary could serve as a tipping point that severely damages the Democrat brand and quickly removes them from power. I relish the debate and would welcome an historic groundswell of revolutionary-style opposition.

This issue was the topic of a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rush Limbaugh. As the most successful and dominating figure in talk radio, his conservative views are ground zero for any legislation that directly or otherwise attempts to re-introduce the failed big government policies embodied by the Fairness Doctrine.

Let the debate (and the revolution) begin!

Excerpt:

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

By Rush Limbaugh
February 20, 2009

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as “local content,” “diversity of ownership,” and “public interest” rules — all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech — which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that “This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”

Click here to read the article on the WSJ website.