E!!

They must be getting desperate.

Why else would the White House post the following blurb at whitehouse.gov:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Let’s re-cap.

Emails.  And casual conversations.  And stuff on the web.  That are “fishy.”  Should be flagged.  And emailed to the White House.  So they can keep track of them.  And combat “disinformation.”

Oooo-KAY.

Since when, and based on what precedent, does a sitting President ask American citizens to report on their fellow citizens in regards to political speech? Has the White House staff lost their senses?  Is the Teleprompter drunk?

The audacity of the request is eclipsed only by its foolishness. Trying to control information – or disinformation – on the web is like trying to herd a million cats. You can’t do it.

And if you’re the White House, you shouldn’t be trying.

I guess this “flag the fishy” idea was dreamt up by the same geniuses who thought it was wise to call concerned Townhall attendees an “angry mob” spouting “manufactured information” when they dared to show up and ask tough questions about health care reform.

People like the woman who asked her congressman, “How can you manage health care when you can’t manage Cash for Clunkers?”

Or the elderly woman who asked her congressman if HE was going to be on the new health care plan.

Yeah, these people are just totally unhinged.

Our elected officials must find it SO annoying to have to deal with these pesky citizens and their annoying questions.

(Iowahawk embellishes with his usual brilliance.)

Let Freedom Ring has a pledge designed to hold congressmen accountable for reading the entire health care bill before they vote on it.

(How ridiculous is it that we even have to have such things?)

Here’s what the website says:

All 535 Members of the U.S. House and Senate have received multiple copies of the Pledge by fax, email, regular mail or personal visitation. Any Representative or Senator not shown on the list of signers below may therefore reasonably be classified as having declined to sign. A few Senators have insisted that although they are supportive of our Pledge, they have adopted a blanket policy against signing pledges that prevents their signing ours. Although Let Freedom Ring believes that that they should make an exception for our pledge, because it is narrowly drawn and quite specific, we have agreed to post letters from those Senators in a separate section following the list of signers. You may read the letters by clicking on the Senators’ names.

Go see the list.  And download the pledge if you want to send it directly to your own rep.

Clever.  And sobering.

I know quite a few people who are planning to go to Washington DC for the 9/12/09 March on Washington.  And quite a few people who say they are not.  Here’s what one Nevada blogger says about why he and his family are going.

Since writing about the Fed Ex/UPS dust-up here and here - and taking a fair amount of heat for it (see the Comments) – I’ve occasionally been checking the web for new articles, columns, and updates. 

This morning, before I even checked my Google alerts, I saw a Corner post referring to this story on Politico.  It seems that FedEx has leaked letter from the American Conservative Union detailing the suggested terms for an expensive email campaign on FedEx’s behalf.  (Politico has all the cut-and-pastes from the letter.)

“Oops.”

Where to begin?

Before I lament the loss of integrity or rip the ACU for being so stupid as to detail a “pay for play” proposal in writing without a strict confidentiality clause, I don’t think David Keene would have sent such a letter without an invitation to do so.  I bet someone at FedEx asked for a proposal, thinking the ACU could be a natural ally in their anti-union fight.  Don’t have any facts to support that theory, but I’m guessing that’s what happened.

Obviously FedEx passed on the ACU’s offer to run a $2 to $3.4M (yes, million) email campaign and is now going after Keene and the ACU because he/they recently threw in their hat with UPS via a coalition letter on ACU letterhead and signed by various grassroots conservative groups.  Whether or not the ACU took any money from UPS in exchange for public support is anybody’s guess.  ACU reps are saying “no.”

A purist would say something like, ”Better to lose on issues and at the ballot booth than debase the conservative movement with questionable tactics.” 

A strategist would say, “The other side does this kind of thing all the time, raising gazillions of dollars as they go, and we have to do it also in order to have a chance against them.”

E!! says:  Smooth move, genuises.  Now the reputation of one of the oldest, biggest conservative grassroots organizations in the country is tarnished, and it will be even harder for the ACU to raise money in this already anemic fundraising environment.  Or to have any political clout when they take a stand on issues.

Nevermind that this gives the Dems a 13 – 7 edge over R’s on the committee; that ratio is to be expected after the 2008 elections.  But Franken is a junior senator with NO qualifications for that seat.  It’s beyond ridiculous.

A little Hill bird just emailed me to hurry up and flip on CSPAN.  Which I can’t do from my present location.  But if I could, I am told I would see/hear House Republican Leader John Boehner reading aloud.  The text?

A 300-page amendment to the Waxman-Markey energy bill that was dropped in at 3 a.m. this morning.  So…here we have Democrats trying to rush through what amounts to the largest tax in American history (Cap and Trade!) AND then slip in giant last minute amendments in the middle of the night.

Really, I’m surprised they didn’t think to slip a mickey in all the GOP drinks to make sure everyone slept through the financial rape of the American taxpayer.

Keep it classy, guys!

Update: If you want to call your congressman and urge him/her to vote against the “Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Legislation, H.R. 2454,” you can go here to get his/her phone number.  If you live in my district, which many of E!!’s Nevada readers do, your rep is Rep. Shelley Berkley.  Her office number in D.C. is (202)225-5965.

Update 2: If you don’t know why you should be against Cap and Trade, read this fact sheet by the Heritage Foundation.

Update 3: Read what newspapers around the country have said about it (page has  pithy quotes from major publications).

Update 4: Um, it passed.  By 8 votes.  As my friend Doug Busselman said on his blog:  “The forces of greater government control and those who favor destroying what’s left of our economy have won — 219-212. Thank goodness we have Senator Harry Reid to protect us — oh, nevermind!”

Update 5: The eight House Republicans who voted for the bill are:

Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)

Additionally, the following two Republicans ABSTAINED from the vote.

Jeff Flake R (AZ)
John Sullivan R (OK)

Update 6:  Campaign for Liberty has a list of all the Democrats who voted against.

Excerpted and condensed from an email from Erick Erickson at RedState:

Obama has proposed sending the International Monetary Fund (IMF) billions of dollars as a quasi-bailout for European banks. 

The word is, House Republicans are going to vote in a block to oppose this, which means around thirty Democrats are needed to defeat the bill.   Blue Dog Dems are the key, along with Dems in districts that tilt Republican.  

Call 202-224-3121. Ask for the members of Congress below and tell them to oppose H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Bobby Bright AL-02
Parker Griffith AL-05
Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01
Suzanne Kosmos FL-24
Walt Mitnick ID-01
Frank Kratovil MD-01
Glenn Nye VA-02
Tom Perriello VA-05Travis Childers (MS-01)
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05)
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Baron Hill (IN-09)

Re-posted from The Corner without comment (or not, I guess, since saying there’s no comment requires a comment):

Lobbying Expenditures Found to Have Incredible Rate of Return on Investment   [Veronique de Rugy]

The Washington Post reports about this new University of Kansas study:

In a remarkable illustration of the power of lobbying in Washington, a study released last week found that a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every dollar they spent on the issue — a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investment.

This should make all bloggers, policy analysts, and other pundits wonder whether we are really using the right medium to get our ideas through.

Here’s a little two minute ditty I think you’ll all enjoy.  My complements to singer and song writer Kathleen Stewart and lyricist Steve Jones.

RedState lists a few things the Senate plans to add to the Stimulus anti-Stimulus bill.

Because Americans are calling for “More pork, please!”

“There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”

– George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1789

Source:  Founder’s Quote Daily, a service of The Patriot Post.  To subscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us/subscribe.php.

Check out this post on this report. 

Sum up:  The Institute for Liberty estimated the carbon emission stats for Inauguration Day.  And it would take the average American household about 60,000 years to match the carbon output of Obama’s supercalifrajilistic party.

I’ve been saying all week that in this age of high-def and live satellite feeds, it is ridiculous that between 1 and 2 million people will be going to D.C. to try to “witness” this event.  Most of them will not be able to get close access or even see Obama with their own eyes.  So what is the point?  It’s a collossal waste of time and energy for very little (if any) return.

Every American with a television or an internet connection can stay home and have a “front row seat” to the swearing-in, speeches, poem readings, parades, confetti showers and joyous weeping.

If they can even stand to watch it, which I doubt I can – knowing that at least $75 million in taxpayer funds will be spent on this one-day event.

An open letter to the newspapers of America by Orson Scott Card.  A little long but full of facts and well worth the read.

Here’s the opening:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

Read the rest when you have the time.

Hat Tip:  The Venerable Mr. Crum (thanks, honey!)

Well, I am not personally acquainted with Leslie Carbone, but I’ve linked to her before and know she’s a true conservative, a very good writer, a prolific blogger and, perhaps most importantly, a Red Sox fan.

And I know she was abruptly and rather rudely disconnected from a White House conference call this week, after being invited by “The Office of Public Liason” to listen in on Barry Jackson, Assistant to the President for Strategic Initiatives and External Affairs.

She speculates that this post may be the reason she was banned.

Oh Yes, How DARE she tell the truth like that!

Seems to me the WH Liason office needs to do some decent Liasing – and at least apologize.

Beyond that, it really burns me that a few negative words about policy can get a blogger-journalist banned from WH conferences.

Please pass this on so it will spread like blogosfire.

(Hat Tip:  Blue Collar Muse)

An American Carol

.

E!! Preview: 

 .

 I’ve seen a few of the trailer/clips (they were good), and if Kevin Farley is half as funny in the movie as he is in person, it will be worth the time and money.

The writer/producer, Myrna Sokoloff, also has a sharp wit – and is a Sweetheart of the first degree.

I had the pleasure of assisting both Kevin and Myrna at the Conservative Leadership Conference here in Vegas last month, and it was one of the highlights of my weekend.

Other cast members:

Kelsey Grammer

James Woods

Leslie Nielsen

Trace Adkins

Robert Davi

And a walk on role for Bill O’Reilly

If you are a conservative, you should see this movie both for fun and “on principle.”  (Maybe if it does well, we’ll see more conservative filmmaking in the future.)

Click here to see Kevin Farley on The View.

And click here to win director David Zucker’s fan contest for a trip to Washington D.C. over 4th of July, 2009.

I’m borrowing my post header from P.J. O’Rourke.  (VERY funny book if you have never enjoyed it.)

I do wish names would be Named, no matter the party affiliation:  who started and voted for all of the federal legislation, who harassed the lenders to conform, which lenders not only conformed but went above and beyond the call, and who made big bucks.

It won’t happen, of course, because they are all in bed together to some degree.

As Anne of Idaho quipped, “Someone needs to go to Washington and Wall Street and close down the whorehouses.”

In re: to my Dodd comments and in the interest of fairness to the Ds and Rs (and with a hat tip to Jim Treacher who posted this a short while ago):

The following letter was sent yesterday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson:

September 24, 2008

The Honorable Henry Paulson
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

As you continue to craft a financial stabilization plan with Congressional policymakers, I wanted to once again urge you to consider a move that could be executed unilaterally by the Treasury Department: indexing the basis of capital assets to inflation for purposes of calculating gain or loss.

There is a body of legal opinion which holds that the Treasury Department has the power to define “cost basis” when taxpayers calculate capital gain or loss. To date, Treasury secretaries of both parties have chosen to define “cost” as nominal purchase price.

This creates a situation whereby an asset held for many years and later sold may generate a capital gains tax liability when much or all of that gain is purely from inflation. For example, a stock purchased in 1990 for $1000 and sold today for $1676 would face a capital gains tax liability on the $676 “profit.” But in reality, 100% of that “gain” is attributable to inflation.

If the Treasury Department were to re-define “basis” to discount the effects of inflation, it would have a timely and pertinent effect on the current financial challenges. Households and businesses would be able to sell assets, unlock liquidity, and pay a much lower level of taxes. This liquidity is badly needed by capital markets. Best of all, this can be done by you unilaterally, substituting Congressional permission in favor of mere consultation.

Sincerely,
Grover Norquist

– E!! says:  This is better than nothing, but I’d like it much more if we eliminated the capital gains tax altogether.  (Yes, I realize that is probably a pipe dream.  That being the case, Grover’s suggestion is excellent.)

With the takeover of AIG, the federal government has wangled its fourth major bailout and taken control of its very first insurance company.  

Both McCain and Obama have called the bailouts of AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns “necessary measures.” McCain blames greedy Wall Street tycoons while Obama blames failed GOP policies.
 
Most sensible folks agree that the government’s implicit guarantee to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a license to lenders to run rampant.  Fannie and Freddie were able to buy bundles of home mortgages and/or mortgage-backed securities in massive quantities without contemplation of the financial risks.

  
Some economists blame the regulators/regulations.  I disagree.  The financial industry is heavily regulated.  It was the government’s guarantee of Fannie and Freddie that emboldened lenders to put together dicey loans and encouraged undisciplined financial endeavors.

Government policy laid the foundation of the mortgage crisis more than three decades ago when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The law forced banks to loan money to low-income borrowers in order to meet the “needs” of the local community.

No worries, though.  The banks knew they could sell off those loans to Fannie or Freddie, and F & F knew they could buy those loans with little regard for the risk.

I’m reminded of the past weekend here in Las Vegas when a few enthusiastic friends (first time visitors) went out and hit the blackjack tables. 

A young man playing two hands was dealt four sevens.  A friend advised him to split and play four hands.  Pondering the risks, he hesitated – but the helpful friend offered to cover his losses and let him keep all the chips if he won. 

What do you suppose that young man did?

He behaved as anyone would:  he played all four sevens.  And, unfortunately, lost on all.

So it goes on the tables of Sin City.  So too, in Congressional corridors and bank board rooms. 

Last night in his interview with Bill O’Reilly, Obama said:

“If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t — what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness.”

Well, Senator Obama, it WOULD BE neighborliness if you were doing it VOLUNTARILY, i.e. if free will were involved.

However, if the amount you pay is decided by the federal government, collected by the federal government, and distributed where and whence the federal government sees fit, and if you resent the hell out of it (as I do), then the act is NOT neighborliness but state-mandated SOCIALISM, otherwise known as the forcible redistribution of wealth, otherwise known as highway robbery by the Nanny State bandits of the world.

(I was pleased when O’Reilly called him “Robin Hood Obama.”)

Confession:

I love to predict political outcomes but so far have lacked the courage to post them on E!!  Today, I shed the shackles of fear and take a stand with some predictions…

Obama’s VP pick will be Evan Bayh.

McCain’s VP pick will be Romney (who will run in 2012 when McCain decides one term was enough).

McCain-Romney will win easily in November.

Hillary will win her party’s nominiation in 2012 after saying something like this to the Dems, “Hey Dummies!  Your arugula-eating, Maxim reading, Harvard grad Golden Boy got stomped in ’08, so stop messing around and nominate me.”

The Corner is speculating that Chet Edwards (not John) might be the pick.  Not a good idea due to the possible name confusion; don’t think it’s gonna happen. 

I think Obama should pick Hillary if he wants to have any chance of winning, but I’m not sure she would agree to take it or that he would be willing to tolerate her on the ticket – or in the White House on a daily basis. 

Geraldine Ferraro was on Hannity last night and said there is “no way” Hillary will accept the VP spot under Obama.  Others have said they think she would, if it were properly offered.

If I were a Hillary staffer, I would advise her to Just Say No to Obama and stick with the roll call vote at the convention, which even if she loses will remind people that she still has strong support in the Demcoratic base, and then in 2012 she can come back and say (to the Dems), “OK Dummies, your Golden Boy got stomped in ’08, so stop messing around and nominate me.”

National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg just emailed me to point out that Reid could screw Lieberman on committee assignments, seniority, etc. 

(I suppose Lieberman might prefer a broken leg or two to being shut down in the Senate…)

One of today’s Roll Call alerts leads with this opener:  “With the controversy surrounding Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) speaking at the GOP presidential convention and his name being floated as a potential GOP running mate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) maintains that there will be no consequences for the Independent-Democrat.”

What “consequences” would there BE…? 

Does this mean Reid has called off his privately funded band of mercenary thugs?  Or changed his mind about bribing a Senate dining room server to poison Lieberman’s lunch?

And is this anything like Jack Nicholson’s order (in the film A Few Good Men) that Private So-and-So was “not to be harmed”?

This morning on the drive to work, I heard Heidi Harris say (on talk radio KXNT) that Obama will be opening four more campaign offices in Las Vegas this week.  Not surprising now that McCain has a slight edge in the polls.

The good news for the Dems is their voter registration edge of about 60,000, many of whom were signed up by the Obama campaign in recent months.  In addition, the Las Vegas Sun reports that the Dems have trained 600 new precinct leaders in addition to the 1,000+ who were trained for the caucuses.

The bad news for Obama is that he has to overcome the senate’s most liberal voting record in a state that is unwaveringly pro-gun and has a deep aversion to tax hikes.  He’s also got a problem in re: to energy because the majority of Nevadans – in both parties – support creating more energy (drill, drill, drill) vs. cutting consumption.

The question is:  will those extra voter registrations and the opening of these new campaign offices make a difference for Obama in November – and should the NV GOP follow suit?

Republicans tend to be more reliable voters, so the GOP doesn’t always have to work as hard to get their peeps to the polls.  With numbers this close, though, McCain’s people may want to take a page from the 2004 Bush-Cheney playbook.  The Republican ground operation in Nevada was huge and Kerry was defeated by 21,500 votes.

Not sure that’s going to happen, though.  The McCain campaign seems to be focusing more on Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — states with larger numbers of electoral votes than Nevada – I guess thinking that if they can win 2 out of 3, they can win the whole enchilada.

Obama seems to be taking a different approach:  grabbing enough (other) Bush states such that losses in the big Midwestern states won’t mean as much.  Clearly, Nevada is one he wants in the bag.

There’s one in every crowd.  Or in this case, five…Republicans, that is, who are muddying the waters of the clearest issue facing the GOP this fall:  energy and offshore drilling.  In response to voter discontent over high gas prices and polling near 80% in favor of offshore drilling, the majority of GOP has (wisely) gone after the Dem anti-drillers in the House.  Enthusiasm for the cause has given new life to conservative candidates who were losing oxygen in tight races.

Enter Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Isakson (R-GA) who, along with five Senate Democrats, have announced that their ”Gang of 10″ wants a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break the ”stalemate.”  Sounds good, right? 

Not really.  The bill says new production on offshore federal lands would be left to the state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hoops and hurdles are huge.  The bill prohibits drilling within 50 miles of the coast — keeping some of our most potentially productive areas closed.  ANWR would still be  a no-go. AND the plan contains $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and handouts for alternative fuels and renewables…to be paid for (drum roll) by raising taxes on oil companies!

Boys, we’ve been over this umpteen times:  we need to open up all lands in all coastal states, keep the red tape to a minimum, drill wherever the oil is, tap ANWR, and get it straight that raising taxes on oil companies means raising the price of gas for consumers, because Big Oil will just pass the hikes down to the man at the pump.

These five Republicans need to re-think their agenda and quick, before November voters hit the ballot booths.  If you wish to express your thoughts and feelings to any of the senators, here are links to their contact pages:

Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)

Not content to let Eric & Allen & Friends have their Happy Ending, Progress Illinois took the Open Left talking points about #dontgo that Eric had debunked on his blog earlier and ran it as fact without doing any checking.  From the Progress Illinois site:

Let’s be clear. This is a “movement” that originated at the highest level of powers in Washington. It’s a movement that, if successful, would benefit large oil companies and their rich executives far more than the average American consumer. It’s a movement with protests populated by paid staffers from industry-funded organizations. In short, there is nothing “grassroots” about it.

ROFL

Anyone who knows Eric “the Libertarian” Odom knows he is as anti-establishment as it gets.  He isn’t In with the Insiders in D.C. in any way, shape or form.  I’ll grant that Eric’s day job is a paid consultant for Sam Adams Alliance, but Eric blogs and Twitters on the side (and only WISHES he got paid to do it). 

Eric and Allen are two very enterprising individuals who threw up the Twitter tag, purchased the two #dontgo-affilliated domain names and built the dontgomovement.com website on their own dime and on their own time.  They were not paid by Big Oil fat cats, mythical “industry-funded organizations,” or Newt Gingrich.  The huge influx of Twitterers and bloggers happened because a lot of good citizens are angry about the lack of Congressional action on energy and were/are interested in what was/is happening on on the House floor…and the Twitter feed was/is the best way to follow the play-by-play.

Isn’t it interesting that the Left just cannot FATHOM the concept of a committed activist who isn’t getting paid and/or receiving some personal benefit for championing a cause?  Seems to me their accusations and protests are very revealing.  One wonders how many staffers at Open Left, Progress Illinois, or MoveOn.org would spend their own time and money trying to get something worthwhile done.  Not too many, I’m guessing.

So, anyhoo, just know that Progress Illinois got the story Wrong.  Not surprising, considering they never bothered to contact Eric and took their talking points from an outdated, debunked post on Open Left…which, by the way, continues to get the story wrong.  To borrow Open Left’s oh-so-sophisticated Slam-fest sum-up which simultaenously insists #dontgo is (1) backed by “the highest levels of power in Washington” and (2) “insignificant”:  whatever!   If Dontgomovement.com is so insignificant, why is the national media all over it – and why are you guys still writing about it?

(For those of you who do not know the whole back story, you can read my post from yesterday and/or catch Mary Katherine Ham’s piece in the Washington Examiner.)

When gas prices fell below $4.00 a gallon, did anyone else feel a fleeting moment of happiness, quickly followed by this thought:  ”Hey, how is it that I feel GOOD about paying $3.85 a gallon for gas?!” 

The fact is, we’ve been gouged into thinking that anything under $4.00 a gallon is good.  To bring yourself back to reality, see this graphic.  To do something about it, go here.

I just love a good David-and-Goliath story.  And as a blogger at Blogivists and friend of Eric Odom, I’ve got a front row seat to a good one.  Strap in and hold on tight as we go on a whirlwind tour of the recent refusal of House Republicans to adjourn without voting on offshore drilling, the #dontgo Twitter tag movement, an attempted sabotage of #dontgo by MoveOn.org and the subsequent launch of a hot new conservative website.  The story goes like this:

Two Fridays ago, Madame Pelosi ajourned the House over GOP objections.  Dems sprinted for the door like kids on the last day of school.  The mics were silenced; the lights were unlit; the CSPAN cameras were killed.  Even so, a few GOPers who wanted a vote on offshore drilling refused to leave the Floor.  Rep. Culberson (R-TX) and Rep. Hoekstra (R-MI) started Twittering (mini-blogging) while Rep. Boehner (R-OH) addressed those still present and Rep. Blunt (R-MO) talked to reporters in the press gallery.

Meanwhile, back in Chicago, a couple of regular guys – Eric Odom and Allen Fuller - threw up the Twitter tag “#dontgo” so the mini-blog reports and emails coming in could be easily searched/tracked.  The tag was chosen to support the GOP hold-outs, as in “don’t go until something is done on energy.”  Reps and staffers started using #dontgo to call the action.  Though the CSPAN cameras were dead, some video of the goings-on was captured on Rep. Culberson’s cell phone and broadcast on qik.com. 

Word began to spread.  MoveOn.org got wind of the Twitter feed and started spamming with irrelevant messages – but rather than jamming #don’tgo, all the spam pushed the tag to the top of Twitter’s list.  (Rob Neppell has since created a low-on-spam version of the Twitter Stream so it is virtually spam free.)

As the Twitter community chirped on, Fuller purchased the domain name dontgo.us; Odom installed WordPress, created some graphics, and wrote some copy and petition (sign here!); and the two took the site Live and began sending out links.  Media forces like Media Lizzy helped Eric and Allen spread the word.  On Tuesday morning, encouraged by the momentum, the duo threw up a jazzier replacement website called Dontgomovement.com to serve as hub.  Thousands of hits started coming in and within a few hours, Eric was contacted by reporters from several major media outlets, including CNN.

The CNN story went live just after the site was opened up, and the story was followed by The Next Right, Red State, Politico, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, Washington Examiner, and scores of bloggers. This wave of attention sent more than 60,000 unique visits to the new site within 24 hours.  Eric has been swamped with emails and already has a good-sized (10,000) mailing list compiled.  The e-mail RSS subscriber list is about 1,200 strong and the #dontgo Twitter Army marches on.

And so it came to be that a couple of fast-on-their-feet guys planted a Twitter tag on Friday and by Wednesday, their new website had been slingshot into national media attention.  Bloggers and Twitterers and web publishers should take a page from that playbook.  This is the “New Media” at its best:  alert, agile and ready to fight the Giants.