On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Fred Thompson and Senator John McCain, who endorses Mitt Romney, sat side-by-side. Each extolled the virtues of their respective candidates, prognosticated on the outcome and consequences of the upcoming Florida GOP primary, and talked about different topics of the day.

At one point, Fred Thompson referenced a New York Times article from that morning that outlined Mitt Romney’s recent attacks on his man Newt. In that context he also stated that Romney was getting biased support from Matt Drudge’s “Drudge Report” website in the form of positive coverage for Romney and negative for Gingrich, saying Romney has Drudge in his “back pocket”.

Recently, much hay has been made some supposed statements Newt Gingrich made in private, disparaging Ronald Reagan. And, that headline was played up big on Drudge.

Most GOP candidates go out of their way to speak glowingly of Reagan, who was an extremely popular president for them. To be seen as critical of Reagan in a GOP race would invite ostracism from the party faithful and old guard. And, Gingrich has been selling himself in Florida as a “Reagan conservative”.

Gingrich stumped in and won the recent South Carolina primary with the message that Romney was the GOP pick, regardless of what the people want. He presented himself as an anti-establishment Washington outsider who would challenge the GOP’s presumption.

The Drudge Report ran the story of Thompson’s accusations, and responded with links to three stories that had reported Newt in the lead in weeks prior.

But, they also soon top-lined these gems.

While at the Blogworld Expo in L.A. WebProNews caught up with Hugh Hewitt, of the Hugh Hewitt Show, and he shared his thoughts on social media, pertaining to elections, and the forthcoming Republican candidate nomination:

“We’re coming into the home stretch here with the Republican nominating process, even though we haven’t cast one vote. That means we tend to make our minds up much earlier than we used to and the Republican electorate is settling down to what I believe will be a Mitt Romney nomination. But, there is still an outside chance that Rick Perry can catch him. He’s got a lot of money and a lot of experience.

It’s a Romney / Perry race. If I had to bet the house, and I don’t thank goodness, it would be on Romney”

It’s no secret that social media played a huge role in the 2008 Presidential race, but what role will it play in next years? Hewitt states that, President Obama had an enormous advantage in 2008 and he ran rings around John McCain. John McCain was not an early adapter of anything… except courage. That’s not enough in a social media world. He goes on to say:

“If you look at team Romney they have assembled the best and brightest minds of the center / right of social media. A lot of people who are very experienced in driving a message below the old media horizon.

It’s very active, and it’s very netted up and you will find at least a match when it comes to ability and performance and probably a lot more sophistication. It helps to be in the opposition. The reason that team Obama was so good is they were all in the wilderness they did not except campaign. Republicans were governing. Now they have that problem and something to defend. That new media energy is on the right, and that will alway shift. The administration party will be behind the curve.”

The 2012 Presidential race will be interesting to watch and see how it plays out, and what new roles social media plays.

For 5 years, WebProNews has partnered with BlogWorld and New Media Expo, the world’s first and largest new media conference, in an effort to broadcast how new media can grow your business, brand, and audience. Stay tuned to WebProNews for much more exclusive coverage.

Yesterday, Arizona Senator and former Presidential candidate John McCain rebuked some members of his own party during a speech on the floor of the Senate. The speech, which took aim at a group of conservatives who “remain unwavering in their opposition to raising the debt ceiling,” quoted a Wall Street Journal editorial called “The GOP’s Reality Test.”

In that article, tea party members were likened to Hobbits from The Lord of The Rings. The piece that McCain read from even mentioned some former GOP Senate nominees that are affiliated with the tea party:

The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against . . . Barack Obama. The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.

This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell into GOP Senate nominees. The reality is that the debt limit will be raised one way or another, and the only issue now is with how much fiscal reform and what political fallout.

Sharron Angle, the Republican who attempted to unseat Harry Reid in Nevada, took issue with McCain and has blasted him both in an editorial and on Twitter. In a piece titled A Statement from a Tea Party Hobbit, Angle says that McCain “brings no new ideas” and chides his “borrowed soliloquies.”

Here are the applicable tweets –

Political infighting: as American as apple pie. Can somebody please send Robert Kraft over there so they can get something worked out? Sure worked for the NFL.

[Lead Image Courtesy]

Stephanopoulos and McCain have announced that they’ll be holding a "Twitterview."  Anyone who’s interested can send discussion ideas to the television reporter’s Twitter account, and then, starting at noon on the 17th, Stephanopoulos will pose questions to McCain 140 characters at a time.  McCain should answer in the same fashion (although he may be able to tweet more than once per exchange).

 

Everybody’s excited about the idea.  On George’s Bottom Line, Stephanopoulos explained that this is "[a]ll a part of exploring new ways to connect with our ‘This Week’ viewers online."  He also noted, "This week I ‘tweeted’ with Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., about her vote against the omnibus legislation on Twitter.  And I’ve been enjoying replying to viewers’ questions online."

As for McCain, the message he made public prior to mentioning the Twitterview reads, "Tweet Announcement: Met with the Vietnamese Ambassador to discuss upcoming trip to Vietnam – posted here first!"  So he obviously likes the service, too.

This is great press for Twitter.  Evan Williams, its CEO, just has to be praying that no outages occur and the character limit doesn’t become a burden.

McCain would prefer to leave that question to the market, while Obama has vowed to make Net Neutrality the law of land. Their stances on this one issue may be what drives AT&T to be one of McCain’s largest contributors, and why Obama has Google, Microsoft, and Stanford in his corner. But neither candidate has exhibited consistent behavior necessarily in favor of those big donors.

McCain not a perfect telecom shill

The harshest of McCain’s critics have filed him under the same label as recently-convicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stephens. In addition to seeming Internet-illiterate, opponents have placed McCain square in the pockets of the telecom industry, “always” siding with them instead of the American people. While it is true much of the liberty the industry led by AT&T and Verizon has abused was granted in part by McCain’s support, he has stood up to the same industry on some important matters.

Sen. McCain was extremely critical of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and voted against it, damning the legislation as representing only the interests of phone companies and not the interests of the people. Sure enough, that bill granted phone companies $200 billion in tax breaks to build out their broadband networks in 2006, money proven since to have been squandered on long distance services instead of the next-generation networks countries like Japan enjoy today.

McCain proved his maverick mettle by opposing a Republican majority seeking to deregulate the telecommunications industry, has advocated allocating spectrum for WiFi and emergency services, introduced the Community Broadband Bill and has supported municipal WiFi, all stances phone companies would rather he hadn’t taken. 
 
On the flipside of that, opponents are quick to note, McCain proposed the Internet Regulatory Freedom Act of 1999 to prohibit the FCC from requiring the Bells to lease out their wires to competitors, and in 2002 supported the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act, another action to prevent the FCC from opening up competition.

The John McCain of the 1990’s seems quite a bit different from the John McCain of the 2000’s, shifting from a regulatory agent under Clinton to a deregulatory champion under Bush. What about John McCain now? Still anti-Net Neutrality, but at the same time, as posted on his website, comes out in favor of open networks, which makes his last official stance somewhat up to interpretation.

Obama not always on the left of the issue

Perhaps this is what Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who’s been visible on the Obama campaign trail, meant by his candidate not being perfect: He flipped on FISA. Though pro-Net Neutrality, his vocal stance inspiring endorsement by none other than Internet-inventor Vint Cerf, Obama has made some surprising switches lately.

The most notable one was Obama’s sudden reversal of his stance against telecom immunity granted in the latest FISA bill. Google was a natural ally in this position, the company refusing to hand over search information to the feds until a court ordered them to do so. Obama was vocally against immunity, and recent history has produced military personnel blowing the whistle on FISA implementation once they discovered they were indeed spying on American citizens on a regular basis. Nevertheless, Obama surprised many supporters by flipping on the issue and voting in favor of the legislation, complete with telco immunity.

If it’s relevant to you, running mate Joe Biden was a long-time supporter of it, and Obama’s reversal came just in advance of his running mate announcement. McCain abstained from voting on the measure, which is sort of like voting present, one would assume, except he wasn’t actually present.

Where they stand on other Internet issues

Both candidates are in favor of:

Permanent ban on Internet taxes
Permanent R&D Tax Credit
Setting aside spectrum for emergency officials
Grants for low-income and minority students interested in technology education
The recent RIAA-backed copyright legislation stiffening penalties for copyright infringement, quietly and unanimously passed during the financial crisis.
Open applications and services, right to attach devices to the network, more broadband competition
H-1B visa expansion (Obama supports a temporary expansion)
Transparency, open access to government records online

Where they differ

Network Neutrality
Deregulation (according to McCain’s recent actions)
Disallowing media consolidation (McCain against, Obama for)

Fundamental philosophy difference

When it comes to technology, Obama is active, McCain is passive. Obama’s plan is detailed and involves the creation of a national Chief Technology Officer, creation of a Google for government so citizens can search government policies and actions, and a website where Americans make suggestions directly, among other technological programs.

McCain’s history suggests he prefers tax credits to businesses and corporations in the belief they will do the good work on behalf of the government, rather than the government implementing the work itself. For example he has proposed a plan to give tax breaks to companies that help keep schools sufficiently equipped with the technology they need. That’s an interesting new tack, considering his opposition to the Telecom Act of 1996, which depended on the kindness of the telcos.
  
 

But Schmidt says he’s not interested. “I’ll put an ‘N’ and an ‘O’ and circle around it, if that would be helpful,” CBS News quotes Schmidt as saying. He has a multinational corporation to run. Of course, Obama, like so many others before him, once wasn’t interested in running for President. Sometimes being asked makes all the difference.

That leaves fellow Googler Vint Cerf, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on the US CTO (tech czar) short list.

After denying his interest in government work, Schmidt gave a fairly muted endorsement of Obama, saying he was the best choice, but “nobody’s perfect.”

If that cabinet spot were available, it’s likely not anymore, huh? That’s kind of like saying, "You’re pretty, for a fat girl."

Cerf seems like the obvious choice for tech czar now, assuming Obama’s elected. Often called the Father of the Internet, Cerf publicly endorsed Obama via YouTube last week because of the candidate’s support for Net Neutrality. The tech czar would be in charge of implementing Obama’s 21st century technology plan, which includes creating a more transparent government via the Web, open networks, and expanding broadband access.

Critics worry, though, that a Googler’s presence in the upper echelon’s of government would unfairly favor the search company, which has been subject of a DOJ antitrust investigation, and has been aggressive in lobbying various FCC decisions regarding wireless spectrum, white spaces, and of course, Net Neutrality.

Who should be worried the most by Googlers in the White House: the telecommunications industry, which desires precisely the opposite of what Google wants. That may be why Verizon and AT&T were falling over each other to install emergency temporary cellular towers at John McCain’s Sedona ranch upon Cindy McCain’s request.  
 

Those guys!

Another Joe the Plumber, this one in Amarillo, Texas, is about to score big time with his joetheplumber.com domain.

In case it’s possible you missed it, the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama last night was a colorful one, to put it mildly—at one point I fully expected McCain to get up and deck his opponent. From the very start McCain invoked the name of Ohioan John Whatsaburger—Wurstabooger—Whosabacher—well, McCain had trouble with the name, too, transforming Joe Wurzelbacher first into Joe Wurzelburger and eventually and repeatedly into Joe the Plumber.

McCain brought him up as an example of a small business owner who would be affected by Obama’s tax increase on those making over $250,000 per year—the upper two percent, according to Obama. McCain said Joe wanted to buy the plumbing business he worked for but wouldn’t if there was to be a tax increase. You betcha it was as memorable collection of moments since Sarah Palin brought up Joe Six Pack.

The Texas Joe the Plumber is basking in some free publicity as his Amarillo-based business is being bombarded by media phone calls. One report says he’s received offers in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for his domain, and that he’s suddenly not so attached to it anymore.

No doubt, Joe. Take the money and the publicity and run. You’ll never get attention like this again. Sell and reinvent yourself as Jake the Snake, or Joe the Guy that Got a Half-Million Dollars for a Silly Domain Name Just Because a Politician Kept Saying It on National Television.
 

What API reported as Mrs. Obama’s words are fairly benign, but enough to get a segment of the blogosphere riled up. In an incredibly poorly spelled and punctuated post, API said she criticized them for supporting “American white racists” who had made an issue of Obama’s adoption by his Indonesian stepfather. Strangely based in Norway and publishing via WordPress, API also reported Mrs. Obama told them “not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency,” and that black people who opposed Obama did so “because of envy.”

Jake Tapper, ABC News’ Senior National Correspondent based in the network’s Washington bureau, has word from the Obama campaign that the interview API claims to have conducted is “100% bogus.”

He writes:

"This morning my inbox is filled with the ‘WHY ARENT YOU COVERING THIS?’ e-mails on the subject. The answer is: because it doesn’t appear to be in any way real."

If you think ABC News is too liberal and somehow less credible than API—established, so the blog header says, in 2006 and virtually invisible in Google search results other than the blog posts mentioning this very controversy—then maybe you’ll believe the National Review, conveying from campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, “The answer is no, it’s not real, the report is made up.  She did not speak to the organization.”

API, which seems to be in pretty tight with, or likes at least to make mention of smear-master Jerome Corsi and misspells words like “Farakhan” and “innoguration,” is sticking to its story, and says if you call them, they’ll tell you the same. They provided their phone number in an update if you’d like to verify with them.

According to a subsequent post, API says it will release audio recording of the phone call “when we are satisfied it is not intended to be misused in any way or for any gains by an group.”

Or, my guess anyway, as soon as they can create one. The better question for ABC would be why they killed a 2006 whistleblower report by former ABC investigative reproter Rebecca Abrahams about how evoting machine company Diebold rigs elections, or why nobody’s talking about Stephen Spoonamore and Mike Connell just a few short weeks before the election. And if candidate wives are going to be a big controversy, Verizon and AT&T rushing out to Sedona to install special cellular towers just for Cindy McCain should be a bigger one.
 

Shortly after Whitman left eBay in March of this year, she made the short list of possible McCain running mates. Perhaps she wasn’t “folksy” enough. McCain clearly hasn’t forgotten Whitman, mentioning her alongside Warren Buffett as possible Treasury Secretary to replace Henry “Fight Credit With Credit” Paulson. McCain also mentioned Whitman was CEO “of a company which started with 12 people.”

A real time reaction from Omidyar on Twitter shows Omidyar’s apparent objection. “Ahem. Started with 12 people?” he tweeted. A quick check of eBay’s own account of its beginning includes only Omidyar from his home computer in 1995. (Other accounts include a couple of others, though, including his PEZ dispenser collector of a girlfriend.) Whitman didn’t join eBay until 1998, after the company went public.

Omidyar’s clear dislike for McCain was evident in posts afterward, twice sarcastically referring to tax cuts McCain would allow him to keep instead of using that money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Omidyar is worth about $10 billion, and clearly, like Buffett, feels he can spare a little.

One wonders if Whitman would also think so, also taking her place among the world’s richest. If so, it would be another way Whitman would find herself fairly alone among major Internet billionaires, who seem to lean Democrat. But when it comes to technology issues, Whitman has historically sided against Republicans. In the past, she’s been vocal about her support of Net Neutrality, and for consumer privacy protections, both issues McCain has erred on the side of deregulation and acquiescence to market forces.

Credit for the screenshot goes to a reader of Chris Cillizza’s now aptly titled “The Fix” blog at WashingtonPost.com. The ad read, “McCain Wins Debate!” unfortunately recalling the Chicago Tribune’s 1948 error declaring Republican Thomas E. Dewey victorious over Harry Truman.

Another ad, according to the same report but lacking a screenshot, quoted campaign manager Rick Davis relaying that “McCain won the debate—hands down.” The Journal would not confirm this second ad appeared.

Actually, most of WebProNews’s inquiries into how this occurred were not answered, but WSJ.com vice president of advertising, Joseph Gallagher, said “this was purely human error,” as opposed to an automated contextual advertising one. “It was obviously supposed to launch in the pm,” he said, “and it was mistakenly launched in the am.”

Gallagher said the mistake was caught “immediately” and was taken down.

Ashley Huston, a spokesperson for Dow Jones, the Journal’s parent company recently purchased by News Corporation, chalked up the premature running of the ad to a clerical error. “The advertising was removed as soon as discovered, and we regret our mistake,” she said.

No one from Dow Jones or the WSJ answered other questions regarding who approved the ad, the editorial process involved in accepting ads, potential ethical considerations, the possibility of the ad being confused with a headline, whether the ad would have run even if McCain hadn’t decided to attend the debate, or whether the Journal would have run it in the event the editorial staff or polls decided he’d actually lost—not answering all likely a smart move on their part.

The WSJ.com advertising page says ads require a 5-day lead-time, so it could be the ad was placed, at the latest, before Monday—and likely before the campaign knew McCain would temporarily “suspend” his campaign.

The young man answering the phone for the McCain campaign assured us anyone with the authority to make a statement was on a plane for Mississippi—every single one of them—but promised to forward our inquiries to the appropriate officials in the off-chance they become available.

The McCain campaign has yet to reply otherwise for request for comment. The Obama/Biden camp had not responded by press time.