Talk about your on-again, off-again operations. Freedom’s Watch, the far-right political group, has, at various times, been the Next Big Thing in conservative politics, and a vacuous paper tiger that can’t figure what to do with itself. In fact, it’s bounced back and forth between these points more than once.
When Freedom’s Watch burst upon the political scene in August 2007, it was part of a coordinated effort to rally support for staying the course in Iraq. The group unveiled four slick TV ads, including one featuring a veteran who lost a leg in Iraq who argued that we have to stay in Iraq because “they attacked us.” It was part of a $15 million dishonest blitz, asking Americans not to believe their lying eyes. Politicos everywhere thought Freedom’s Watch was on its way to becoming a powerhouse.
Then, the right-wing group was beset by internal problems, a lack of direction, and a serious staff shake-up and the departure of high-profile staffers, including the group’s inaugural president, former Bush aide Bradley Blakeman. “Vaporware” quickly became the operative word. Less than a month ago, though, Freedom’s Watch was reportedly back on track after hiring hatchetman Carl Forti.
Now, apparently, it’s off track again.
[A]fter a splashy debut last summer … the group has been mostly quiet, beset by internal problems that have paralyzed it and raised questions about what kind of role, if any, it will actually play this fall. […]
Backers of Freedom’s Watch once talked about spending some $200 million, a figure that officials now say was exaggerated. Lending to the aura of ambition, the organization moved into a state-of-the-art 10,000-square-foot office in Washington and hired a staff of about 20, with talk of bringing in scores more for a vigorous campaign to promote conservative issues.
Behind the scenes, however, Freedom’s Watch has been plagued by gridlock and infighting, leaving it struggling for direction, according to several Republican operatives familiar with the organization who were granted anonymity so they could be candid about the group’s problems.
The conservative answer to MoveOn.org? I don’t think so.
So, what seems to be the trouble? Apparently, there’s one billionaire financing the entire operation, and as Laura Rozen explained, he’s apparently not an easy-going benefactor.
In Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, foreign-policy hawks thought they had found the conservative answer to liberal philanthropist George Soros: a deep-pocketed benefactor eager to dole out generous sums to right-leaning advocacy groups and grassroots campaigns. Adelson’s largesse, they believed, would underwrite the further advancement of conservative causes — particularly those regarding national security — and allow conservatives to do well-financed battle with ideological adversaries such as MoveOn.org. […]
In not-for-attribution interviews, a few conservative think tank hands and activists expressed frustration that Freedom’s Watch has yet to develop a comprehensive strategy, and they gripe that it has been slow to set up a MoveOn-style infrastructure. Freedom’s Watch hasn’t realized its full potential, they say, in part because Adelson overly involves himself in the group’s decision-making and won’t heed the good advice of … well, people like them.
“He is both meddlesome and attached to his own agenda,” says a conservative think tanker. “And he is not listening to people who are giving him good political and strategic advice…. Everyone I know comes away very frustrated from their experience” with Freedom’s Watch. “They are late to the game and they need to recognize that,” he adds. “MoveOn has had a microphone to itself for a number of years. Freedom’s Watch is not entirely ineffective, but they are not well organized or maximizing their impact.” (Conservatives may be too obsessed with MoveOn to realize that it’s a membership-based organization and not a precise model for a top-down outfit like Freedom’s Watch.)
Other conservative activists raised similar points. “You have people like Ari Fleischer on the board of Freedom’s Watch saying ‘the cavalry is coming,’ and a lot of groups who think they have important work to do on various issues who have, of course, come to [Adelson] with proposals,” says a source familiar with Freedom’s Watch. “Freedom’s Watch doesn’t have an executive director at the moment, and I don’t see what capabilities it has set up.”
I continue to think the right is confused about how MoveOn.org came to succeed. They seem to think, “We’ll get some money together, deliver a right-wing message, hire some Bush hands, the grassroots will come together, and the operation will be a success.”
It’s not that easy. MoveOn doesn’t follow a top-down model; it’s the other way around. Loyal Bushies can raise some money and form yet another conservative activist group, but that’s hardly a recipe for success.
MoveOn drew support because it had a cause (Clinton impeachment). It showed staying power when new causes (Iraq war) emerged. This wasn’t an instance in which a bunch of liberals got together and said, “Wouldn’t it be great to form some kind of organization to advance a progressive agenda?” It was a far more natural evolution, a fact that seems to elude those who want to emulate it. (As Atrios noted a while back, this point has also eluded the media.)
Freedom’s Watch seems to be getting quite an education in this regard. It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving group of people.