On Election Day 2008, who received more votes? Was it Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama, who won the election?The answer might surprise you: Senator John McCain.With the rise of early voting, you must plan for a month of get out the vote efforts.As Jeremy Bird, National Field Director for the Obama 2012 campaign, told the Wall Street Journal: advantage in early voting goes to "whoever is most organized."Let's get organized.Find your state's early voting and absentee voting deadlines in the table below. Then register for LI's free, live webinar this Wednesday at 7pm EST: Early Voting Strategies to Win.You'll learn from and talk with LI faculty about what you must know about early voting -- and how you can apply these lessons to a campaign you care about.Can't make the webinar? Check back on Thursday for a replay.>

The key to winning an election is much more than simply turning out more voters than your opponent. You must learn the techniques that successful campaigns have been using for years, and then adapt them to fit your winning formula.A successful door-to-door effort could be the difference you need to win!

As Morton Blackwell wrote, now is the time for you to work hard for the candidates of your choice. Roll up your sleeves and get to work.But if you're new to activism or brand new to political volunteering, where do you go and what do you do? How do you get in touch with a campaign and find out how to help?Follow this simple, easy, and quick five-step process -- and you'll be well on your way to helping the candidate of your choice win and spending Election Day 2012 knowing you did your part for your principles.1. Find the campaign HQ or offices online. Call the number listed, introduce yourself, and say you'd like to help.Every campaign website should have a page called "Volunteer," "Take Action," or "Get Involved" that will provide information. Alternatively, you can click on a page labeled "Contact" to get a phone number. If you'd like to volunteer for a presidential or statewide race (e.g. a campaign for governor or Senate), try to find the contact information for the campaign office closest to you.Then punch in the numbers and give the office a call. Here's a simple script: "Hi, my name is [Name]. I would like to get involved with your campaign. Is there someone I can speak with?"Your call likely will be forwarded to the volunteer coordinator, who directs the activities of volunteers like you. He or she can explain the best times to stop by and answer any questions you have.2. Walk into the office, smile (of course!), and say you want to volunteer. You'll be directed to the right person.Campaign headquarters are always in motion. Don't be intimidated, especially if this your first time walking into a campaign office.Smile and say hello to the first staff member you see. If you explain you're there and you're happy to help, you'll be welcomed with open arms.3. If possible, bring a friend or two. It's more fun for you and more help for the campaign -- win-win!Most events in life are more fun with a friend. Volunteering for a campaign is no exception.Children in middle school and high school may also enjoy volunteering with you. Check with the campaign office when you call and see if there will be age-appropriate activities. It's a free family night out -- and a great way to model civic engagement.But if you don't have friends or family to bring with you, don't worry. Volunteering for a campaign is a great way to meet like-minded, engaged people like you. Plus, spending the coming days and weeks hard at work for a common campaign will help you forge new friendships.4. Be flexible and ready for anything. The work may not be glamorous, but it's important (and you'll learn a lot).You may be asked to stuff envelopes, walk door-to-door, call voters, set up for or clean up from an event, or much more. Campaign work is as unceasing as it is varied. It will help you to be ready for anything and walk into the office with an open mind.Always give a good try at whatever you're asked to do. But if -- for example -- you've spent 45 minutes calling voters and you know it's just not for you, kindly ask the volunteer coordinator how else you can help the campaign. There's always another job that needs to be done.5. Ask questions about your tasks, especially if you're new. There's no such thing as a stupid question.No one is born a campaign pro; the knowledge and skills are built over time through political training and first-hand experience.So don't be afraid to repeat the instructions to make sure you understand. It's much better to ask questions beforehand than to apologize for a mix-up or misunderstanding later.Pass on your new knowledge with this handy graphic. Download the image, and email, tweet, share, or pin it across the web. >

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with friends and supporters of the Leadership Institute this morning at the monthly Wednesday Wake-Up Club Breakfast. Secretary Rumsfeld was America's 13th and 21st U.S. Secretary of Defense serving in the Bush and Ford administrations.“Let me just thank the Leadership Institute for all you folks do,” Secretary Rumsfeld said. “This is a terrific organization and what LI is doing is enormously important…LI is something that deserves recognition.”In his remarks for breakfast attendees, Secretary Rumsfeld gave his thoughts on current affairs and answered many questions from the audience.“I worry about intelligence,” Secretary Rumsfeld shared today at the Leadership Institute. “I worry about the fact that we live in a dangerous and difficult world and there are a number of closed societies. It's very difficult to have a good grip on what's taking place in the world. It's even more worrisome that weapons have become increasingly lethal and the proliferation of highly lethal weapons has increased.”He continued, “What worries me most is American weakness. Throughout my adult life, the United States has been an important presence in the world. The fact that we've existed and the fact that we've behaved responsibly with respect to how we've managed our economy…that provided stability in the world, a deterrent. It suggested to people that the United States was there, we were part of the rib cage in the world, the structure, and people had to take account of that.”He then recounted a phone call he received from a statesman in Southeast Asia: “Don, I never dreamt I'd live to see the day when adults in the White House would be modeling America after Europe, a failed model. And of course, that's basically what we're doing,” Rumsfeld said.“You cannot accumulate and incur, what is it today or yesterday, $16 trillion of debt and not place an almost impossible burden on the next generation,” he said. “We have demonstrated to the world and this statesman that we as a nation are not behaving in a responsible way from the management of our economy. And that signal goes out across the globe and it's registered in people's heads and it gives them the freedom to know they can do things that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do.”When Secretary Rumsfeld served in the Navy during the Eisenhower administration and then in Congress, the United States spent 10 percent of its GDP on defense, he explained. Today, we spend less than 4 percent.“The debt and the deficits have not been a result of defense budgets, but a result of entitlements,” he argued.He added, “Throughout our history, when things got bad, good people changed their priorities, got out of their chairs and did more than they were doing previously. They were energized by their concern…If there's ever been a time in my 80 years where good people needed to get out of their chairs and push that pendulum back, this is it. And it is particularly important for the coming generations that we do not leave them a country where youngsters coming along will have to look forward to a future that was not as bright and not as optimistic as it has been for each of us in this room.”Mr. Rumsfeld recently completed writing his number one New York Times bestselling memoir, Known and Unknown. The book spans his career and includes extensive primary documentation, much of which has been made public on a supporting website, www.Rumsfeld.com.To watch the full video remarks from today's breakfast, please go here.For more on Secretary Rumsfeld's bio, please go here.For future LI Wednesday Wake-Up Club Breakfasts, please go here. >

Now is the time for you to work hard for the candidates of your choice. Roll up your sleeves and get to work.Here are some of the advantages to you of campaign work right now. You may be crucial to a win for a good candidate in a close race. Win or lose, you will gain valuable experience. No matter what your future activity in the public policy process, campaign work is a durable credential. It's a surefire way for you to make useful contacts.It's often a lot of fun. Be careful what you commit to do; then do it well. Under-promise and over-perform. In short, if you're not active in a campaign now, find and contact a candidate whom you like. Volunteer and follow through. This short piece was first published in a September 18, 1992 mailing to Leadership Institute graduates. >

Voter registration is as important as volunteers and fundraising for a campaign. You can't win if you don't have the votes. Learn how to find unregistered voters and why a successful voter registration drive can lead to victory.

Morton Blackwell delivered this speech at the Second Annual Conservative Leadership Conference, in Washington, D.C. on November 10, 1990. Knowledgeable conservatives, in moments of candor, will admit our grassroots activity is far less today than a dozen years ago. Several causes come initially to mind:• We do not have a Ronald Reagan, persuasively reliable on all our issues, around whom to rally.• The success of conservative economic policies has brought an unprecedented period of economic prosperity, lessening our fears for the survival of the free enterprise system.• The success of conservative policies of peace through strength has helped engender the utter extinction of the Brezhnev Doctrine and hastened the collapse of much of the Soviet empire.• Our ancient liberal enemies have ceased to trumpet much of their old ideology and seem to be doing all they can to sound as if they are conservatives on many issues. Most of these causes are the natural results of successful policies of a newly formed, governing majority coalition, signs of the cyclical process familiar in a healthy, two party system. When the threat perception declines, activists tend to lose much of their old enthusiasm. Coalition members tend to start bickering. But these reasons are not sufficient to explain the extent of the current decline in grassroots activism. New governing coalitions in the United States tend to last for a generation or two. Other factors are at work. Today I intend to discuss two other factors, the increasing domination of political consultants and growing failure of conservatives to run candidates. These are factors which affect our opponents as well. But the extent of the damage done to us by these two factors is largely in our power to correct. First let us consider the career path of a successful political consultant. Here is what happens: A smart campaign staffer helps win a high visibility election and decides to become a consultant. The new consultant is soon involved in another win or two and is suddenly able to sell his services to many campaigns. While able to give his few, early clients a great deal of personal time, working through many levels of their campaign organizations, the consultant quickly finds it impossible to give the same type of service to half a dozen candidates simultaneously. Unable now to supervise detailed operations involving many layers of people in many campaigns at once, the consultant directs his client campaigns toward media-intensive, rather than people-intensive activity. Media decisions are few in number. They require skill but little time. The consultant also realizes it is very much in his own financial interest to have as much as possible of his clients' budgets spent on media. Most consultants take a 15% commission (over and above client-paid production costs and his retainer) from media vendors for all placements. The consultant knows he gets no commission for campaign funds spent on people-intensive activity, such as:• Precinct organization• Voter ID phone banks• Voter registration drives• Youth effort• The election day process to get out the vote With their budgets warped towards media spending, candidates and their in-state organizations are led to measure the progress of their campaigns only in terms of dollars raised and tracking polls. (When I ask a candidate in a close race how he is doing and he answers by first describing his fundraising progress, I know he is in trouble.) In defense of his practices, the consultant develops an outspoken contempt for any proposal, significant campaign expenditures except for paid media. Many of his clients lose due to their failure to organize large numbers of people in their campaigns. But some of his clients do win. These winners are the ones the consultant talks about as he recruits clients in the next election cycle. Having helped several candidates, the consultant is likely to be hired again to run their reelection campaigns. The incumbents have the ability to amass huge campaign funds, often from local donors. Even in the closing days of a reelection campaign where an incumbent is virtually unopposed, the consultant has a strong incentive to urge their incumbent on to raise more and more money. Never mind that conservative candidates in other contests in the area might actually win close contests but for the incumbent's having vacuumed up so much money from available donors. After all, for every additional $100,000 spent on broadcast media, the consultant will pocket a cool $15,000 plus his fees for creating any new commercials. The consultant, now prosperous and enjoying a changed lifestyle, has ready access to and influence with some incumbent officeholders. He decided to branch out into lobbying, where his influence enables him to pull down some really fat fees from major corporations, trade associations, and even foreign governments which have major financial interests in the decision of elected and appointed government officials. By now, most of the consultant's income does not come from election campaigns. But he continues to take some candidates as clients, partly to keep his valuable ties with incumbents and partly because there are in each election cycle some rich candidates and others able to raise big war chests, which will be spent largely on campaign media, still a fine source of income for the consultant. Every experienced conservative campaign activist has seen outrageous examples of this behavior. My luncheon for conservative campaign activists has met bi-weekly, without exception, since 1974. I keep close touch with the election process. I'm not raising this as a theoretical problem. Not all successful consultants behave this way. A great many do. But others, particularly those who specialize in one or more aspects of campaign technology such as direct mail, telephone canvassing, coalition building and youth efforts, do not. This growing problem with consultants has many bad effects:• The unnecessary losses of many conservative candidates each year• The looting of millions of dollars misspent on media• The suckering of many right candidates who are falsely led by consultants to believe they can win• The increasing perception that campaigning is mostly mudslinging TV commercials• Worst of all, the general decline of citizen participation as activists and, often, even as voters in the political process Historically, volunteer participation in elections is the greatest preparation for competent campaign management and good candidates in future elections. That source of new activists and candidates is drying up. Can grassroots activists do anything to limit the damage done by the increasing dominance of campaign consultants? Certainly. One big reason for reliance on campaign consultants is the increasing complexity of modern election technology. But in the years leading up to the election of 1980 conservative organizations ran massive political education and training efforts. Activists were prepared by the thousands. That grassroots infrastructure building should be vigorously resumed. If you are a donor to a conservative organization you should demand that a substantial portion of its budget should be spent on increasing the number and the effectiveness of its activists. If a group fails to do this, give to other groups instead. If you are a donor to a party organization, demand that it spends your money, in part, on a serious program of political education and training. There is hardly any area of political technology which cannot be mastered by a willing local activist. The Republican party was spending a much higher percentage of its revenue on political education and training twenty years ago than it is today. The GOP is giving only peanuts to its volunteer base. Be careful that the training programs actually teach useful skills. Many seminars which purport to teach local activists are taught by consultants not interested in preparing volunteer competitors. Such programs serve only to teach the participants that the consultant knows his topic and is worthy of hire. If you contribute to a candidate, you have the right to demand that his campaign give a healthy budget to people-oriented programs: precinct organizations, women's activities, youth efforts, etc. These activities build grassroots infrastructure like no others. Let us now turn to the problem of the growing failure of conservatives to run candidates. More and more it is proving impossible to recruit conservative candidates against incumbents or even for open seats. Challengers for even local incumbents often cannot be found. The next Congress will have only four Republicans among the ten congressman from my home state of Virginia. But ten years ago we elected nine of the ten. And the lone Democratic congressman was more was more conservative than some of the Republicans. And all six of the Virginia Democratic congressmen are quite liberal by Virginia standards. And, what is worse, far worse, is the dreadful fact that we did not run Republican challengers against any of the five incumbent Democrats. They got off scot free. But don't for a moment think the Democrats gave our five incumbent Republicans a free ride. No, there were Democratic challengers to all five of our congressmen. And the challenger who beat Congressman Stan Parris reportedly raised more money than any other challenger against a Republican incumbent in the United States this year. This problem in my state is typical of the situation in many parts of the country. In fact, there is a fundamental misconception which is shared by many conservatives and many Republican leaders. This political error is not unique to Virginia. It is, I believe, a misunderstanding of how best to build grassroots strength through running candidates. Too many of us think we should run a candidate only when we think there is a good chance we can win the election. And, since nobody believed we could beat any of the five incumbent Virginia Democratic congressmen, nobody ran against any of them. I submit that, in the case of these ten congressional races, the Democrats acted smarter than the Republicans. But not running a candidate often sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Why spend the time and money it takes to run and almost surely losing race? Why ask a candidate to take on an almost surely losing candidacy? Why embarrass the party or the conservative cause by losing badly? Why take the chance of diverting resources from our candidates elsewhere who have a chance to win? Why anger a safe incumbent opponent? All these sound like pretty good reasons not to challenge apparently safe liberal incumbents, don't they? Many Republican incumbents, in particular, don't want to rile many of their Democratic colleagues by challenging them. And most of those arguments sound just as good as reasons not to run a candidate in an open district where the liberals seem virtually certain to win. Yet those are arguments which ultimately lead to slow growth, no growth and eventual decline of a movement or a political party. If conservatives in Virginia had operated in this fashion for the past 25 years, Republicans would not have won our first U.S. Senate race, the party would not today hold even four congressional districts and the party would not have the record strength it enjoys today in Virginia's General Assembly and in local offices. Take for example my own congressional district, the Tenth. Conservative Republican Frank Wolf was an unknown in 1976 when he first announced against the incumbent liberal Democratic Congressman Joe Fisher. Frank Wolf campaigned hard but lost the nomination to a state legislator, who was then beaten by Congressman Fisher in November. Frank Wolf again took on this seemingly hopeless task in 1978. He was nominated and did better than the state legislator had two years earlier. But Wolf lost again in 1978. Finally, in 1980, frank Wolf won both the nomination and, narrowly, the general election defeating the incumbent who very few people thought was vulnerable four years earlier. The two earlier races had so weakened the liberal Democratic congressman and so strengthened our organization that we were able to take the district. We have been winning it by convincing margins ever since. Think about this seriously. Everyone who knows much about politics knows of many cases where races against supposedly entrenched incumbents weakened the incumbents so they could be defeated in subsequent elections. Isn't that a fair situation? Isn't that a strong, solid reason to run candidates, almost an obligation to run candidates, even when there is thought to be no chance to win in the current election year? The best know political consultants, by the way, usually advise against running candidates who are very unlikely to win. But such candidates provide the big consultants with no revenue, except in case of rich, hopeless candidates. In this latter case, consultants are often willing to take them as clients. Often to "take" them in both senses of the word. Conservatives who know how important it is to build for the future also know how a losing race can soften up an opponent for future defeat, build credibility for our challengers and build strength of our own organizations. These are powerful reasons not to leave vacant places on the ballot. While we know of losing races which made possible later victories, there is another situation which often occurs. Some conservative activists can remember our Virginia United States Senate race in 1972. An unusual congressman from the Eighth District, Bill Scott, made what most so-called "experts" thought was a hopeless race against the supposedly invulnerable incumbent, U.S. Senator Bill Spong. Now not everyone thought the Scott for Senate cause was hopeless. A conservative Republican leader, Richard Obenshain, thought this so-called "impossible" race was actually winnable. So he set out to win with Scott, certainly one of the most difficult candidates our party has fielded in our lifetimes. But Dick Obenshain was a political genius who saw opportunities where others saw only problems. Bill Scott won. Six years later he turned his U.S. Senate seat over to another Republican whom many of us hoped would have been Dick Obenshain. Senator John Warner won very narrowly in 1978, winning again in 1984 by a big margin. This year Democrats did not challenge Sen. Warner, which is great for Republicans and, in my opinion, bad news or Democrats. But we should remember that almost everyone at first thought Bill Scott could not win this seat when he ran for it 13 years ago. Please think about it. How many times have you, yourself, been pleasantly surprised when a race supposedly hopeless for us has resulted in a thrilling conservative victory? Most of our best conservative members of both houses of the Congress first won in just such circumstances. Sometimes the liberal nominee self-destructs unexpectedly. Sometimes our candidate and his campaigns turn out to be much better than we expected. Surely all of us can think of predicted losers who instead became glorious winners. It that not therefore another good reason to run candidates whom we really don't expect to win? Frankly, looking at the ten congressional districts in Virginia today, how the Democrats treated us and how we treated them, it's a scandal that we have left all their incumbents unchallenged. At the congressional level, Virginia has only a one and a half party system in 1990. How about your state? This situation I call a scandal is not to be blamed on any particular party leaders at the local or state levels. The general idea of not challenging supposedly invulnerable incumbents is common almost everywhere in our country. In my home county of Arlington, our party has very often in recent years failed to run candidates against many of the worst liberals in Virginia. There is plenty of blame to go around. And I'll accept my share. What I am proposing today is not recriminations but a badly needed change of policy, a change of our behavior. Let me put it clearly. Not running candidates is almost worse than putting up losing candidates. Sometimes we produce upset victories. Sometimes we build up candidates for future victories. Always we involve new people who can later help us win future victories. Always we force the opposition incumbents to gather and spend for themselves some resources which might otherwise be spent against our conservative candidateselsewhere. Not running candidates is no way to build a movement or party. If one chooses to be active in a party structure, one necessarily must support that party's incumbents except in extraordinary circumstances. But conservatives primarily active outside a party structure are free of most such constraints. In sum, conservatives should run candidates against liberal incumbents and for open seats regardless of whether or not the potential candidates appear to be possible winners. The only two tests should be these: 1. Will the person act responsibly in the campaign? 2. If elected, would the person be a credit to our cause? If a potential candidate passes these two tests, then encourage him or her to run. Do this regardless of whether or not there appears to be a real chance to win the election.You may not happen to find or be able to recruit to run any independently wealthy, thirty-five year old conservative business leaders with degrees in both economics and political science. If not, you might recruit a politically savvy mother; we have a lot of them across America who would make good candidates. Or run a distinguished retiree. Or even a dedicated and intelligent young person. Each new candidate brings to your cause not only his own time and effort but also the resources and enthusiasm of his own circle of family, friends and supporters. And many people who don't like the liberals are happy we have given them a choice. Of course I don't advocate misleading a potential candidate to think you can provide money or manpower which aren't actually available. Already this happens too often. Give a realistic estimate of this chances of winning. Say what the limits of likely movement resources and party support. The national and state party resources will be and should be focused in the main on candidates with some prospect of election. Curiously, you will find that some people don't mind being run as sacrificial lambs in a good cause. To fill out a Republican ballot, I ran for the state legislature in Louisiana 22 years ago. I was duly sacrificed, but with no lasting ill effects. You will find that some potential candidates will respond to your less than optimistic assessment of their chances by declaring candidacy despite the long odds. Many will convince themselves that they do have a chance. And some may surprise you by actually winning. Look at this from your own experience. Aren't most of the conservative winners you know and almost all of the key workers for conservative winners you know, aren't these people experienced in prior, but losing campaigns? We are trying to build a stable governing majority. Winning today isn't everything. Losing today may open doors to victories tomorrow. Let's fill the ballot where we can.>

Missed last night's webinar? No problem -- watch it whenever you have time today or this weekend. (Click "Read the full story" to get started!) You'll hear from Bryan Bernys on voter goals. Bryan is LI's Vice President for the Campus Leadership Program. Bryan came to the Institute with a wealth of campaign experience: New Hampshire Field Director for the McCain 2008 campaign, Field Director for the Tarrant for Senate campaign in Vermont, Campaign Manager for Robinson for Delegate in Virginia, consultant for the Ball for Delegate special election in Virginia, and field staff for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign in Michigan.>

It's going to take a lot more than t-shirts, bumper stickers, and yard signs to target voters. To make the most out of your voter targeting program you must determine how many voters you need to identify, then find what issues motivate them to vote, and finally think outside the box to find the votes to make it to your winning magic number. >

If you want to learn more, register for the Leadership Institute's Get-Out-the-Vote Workshops in battleground states, or for a free webinar this Wednesday at 7pm EST on voter targeting. Winning an election does not require winning 100% of the vote – only enough votes necessary to win. In many cases this is a plurality of the vote. In other cases when a runoff election is involved, candidates may set a vote goal of reaching a clear majority when it would avoid a runoff election. In any case, the campaign must determine an exact number of votes it plans to reach to win the election. (Learn how to do this in a free, live webinar this Wednesday night, August 15.) Voter contact is then aimed at building to the specified vote goal. Why target? Campaign resources, particularly time and money, are limited. Voter targeting makes you more efficient and more effective. You're more effective because you get the right message to the right voters. You're more effective because you target your resources at the voters you're most likely to persuade to vote. Think of the process. You start by targeting voters who always vote, either your way or they're swing (i.e. undecided) voters. Then you target people who sometimes vote, either your way (encourage them with get-out-the-vote messages) or are swing voters (help persuade them your candidate is the one). Only after you've thoroughly exhausted your contacts with those groups of voters should you target voters unlikely to turn out to the polls. It wouldn't make sense to the do the reverse, would it? How is targeting done? One set of factors involves who exactly can vote in the election. While in a general election any registered voter may cast a ballot, different rules typically apply in primary elections (e.g. closed primary elections based on party registration). Voter contact is aimed at voters who can actually vote in the election. A second set of factors involves which voters are likely to vote in the election. Voter turnout rates are typically highest in a general election in a presidential year. General elections in non-presidential years see lower turnout rates, as do primary elections. The lowest turnout rates are often seen in special elections. Campaigns can determine how voters plan to vote through several means, each with varying levels of accuracy. Voter identification refers to the practice of contacting individual voters and asking them if they plan to support a particular candidate in the upcoming election. The practice is similar to telephone polling, but differs in two ways. First, a much larger number of calls is involved because the purpose is to identify with certainty how each targeted person plans to vote, rather than extrapolating based on a limited sample size. Second, with voter identification programs, each voter's responses are recorded and stored in a database. Polling can also be used to determine segments of the electorate that should be targeted for persuasion and turnout efforts. The practice can be less costly than voter ID programs, but accuracy is diminished because assumptions are used to determine the sentiment of large groups of voters. As the campaign engages in voter contact, the first step normally involves building a level of familiarity with voters who are part of the campaign's target universe. This involves building name recognition and credibility that is vital for future persuasion and turnout messages to be effective. Voter identification programs take place once voters have received some level of contact (or have pre-existing familiarity with the candidate). Voters positively identified as supporters become targets of future turnout messages as Election Day approaches. Voters who are in the target universe but are undecided become targets for persuasion messages. Voters who are firm opponents are usually removed from future contact. Want to learn more? The Leadership Institute will offer a free, live webinar this Wednesday at 7pm EST on voter targeting. If you can't watch it then, you'll find the replay on the website here later in the week. >

Missed last night's webinar? No problem -- watch it whenever you have time today or this weekend.You'll hear from Linwood Bragan on campaign structure and organization. Linwood began his political life in 1972. His campaign experience covers management, operations, finance, and grassroots. Twice he has been a candidate himself. He has lectured in 20 states on political activism, finance, organization and elections from New England to the Rockies and the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast.You can register right now for next week's webinar: determining voter goals, which will be held live on Wednesday, August 15 at 7pm EST.

Whether you're watching the news, volunteering at a local campaign office, or organizing your own run for office, it's helpful to know who's who -- and who's doing what! -- on the campaign trail. So what's the work involved? No matter the size of the campaign, it must focus on 11 key activities, some of which you'll learn about in more detail in the coming weeks: - planning and strategy- day-to-day management- fundraising- communications- research and polling- issues and messaging - voter contact- volunteer coordination- coalitions- scheduling- advance The structure of the campaign and the roles of the staff are based on dividing up responsibility for these 11 key activities. Before the campaign is underway, the leadership team must decide -- and write down in the campaign -- which person is responsible for what activities. What activity is the responsibility of a volunteer or a paid staff member? Will each activity be assigned to a different person or will one person handle multiple campaign activities? On smaller campaigns, people may fill multiple roles and volunteers may take on substantial responsibilities. But on larger campaigns, this is the general breakdown by job title. Campaign Manager The campaign manager is the CEO. He or she is responsible for all campaign activities, including management of the candidate, and making sure that daily operations and programs are completed on time and within the budget. On smaller campaigns, the campaign manager may play multiple roles: political strategist, fundraiser, media contact, and volunteer coordinator. But on larger campaigns, he or she oversees the campaign staff and consultants in their day-to-day work. Finance Director The Finance Director is responsible for the campaign's fundraising programs. He or she develops a fundraising plan and oversees the campaign's fundraising efforts through mail, online, and at in-person events. The Finance Chairman and Finance Committee support the Finance Director. The chairman is ideally a person with strong ties to the local community who can help the campaign reach beyond donors who have a direct relationship with the candidate. The Finance Committee is composed of similar people, whose networks can be tapped to raise funds for the campaign. Communications Director The Communications Director is responsible for the campaign's messaging and communication to internal groups (i.e. donors, volunteers, and supporters) and external groups (i.e. media). He or she is responsible for determining when, how, and in what terms the campaign's message is shared and spread. He or she also responds to inquiries, from the press, the community, or supporters, about the campaign. The Communications Director also is responsible for the prioritization of campaign issues. A campaign is always about the candidate's ideas and issues. The Communications Director helps the candidate determine the most important messages and the most effective way in which to deliver them. On larger campaigns, the Communications Director will work with a Press Secretary, who maintains regular contact with the media. Political Director The Political Director oversees a wide range of areas: voter targeting, outreach, and identification; coalitions; endorsements; and work with surrogates to speak on behalf of the campaign in the media. On larger campaigns, the Political Director will oversee a Field Director, who manages day-to-day voter identification and outreach efforts “in the field,” and a Volunteer Director, who recruits and deploys volunteers to support the campaign's efforts. Consultants Professional consultants may be hired to manage entire campaign activities (e.g. fundraising or research and polling) or to part of a campaign activity (e.g. producing radio or television ads). The role of consultants on the campaign should be clearly delineated in their contracts. In addition to these paid staff, campaigns rely heavily on volunteers – motivated by the candidate or the candidate's issues – to complete their day-to-day work. >

What will it take for conservatives to win in 2012? It won't be how right we are. It will be how hard we work in the 90-day countdown to Election Day.Today the Leadership Institute launches Voting Is Not Enough, a special project for campaign season 2012, that will arm activists like you with how-to, practical knowledge to use for your candidate or cause this fall.As part of Voting Is Not Enough, you'll receive:- weekly live webinars with expert LI faculty- writings from Morton Blackwell, the Institute's president- informational posts on campaign and activism topics- "quick tip" videos you can use right away Plus, the Leadership Institute and the Faith and Freedom Coalition will cosponsor Get-Out-The-Vote Workshops in 14 states, starting this week. The goal is to train more than 1,000 activists to host voter registration drives and get voters to the polls on Election Day. Will you be one of them? >

Morton Blackwell's piece, The Real Nature of Politics, is at the core of the Voting Is Not Enough project. As he explains, the winner in a political contest over time is determined by the number and the effectiveness of the activists and leaders on the respective sides. The mission of the Leadership Institute, and this project, increase the number and effectiveness of conservative activists. What I am about to share with you is probably the most important lesson you will learn at any time in your life about success in the public policy process. Conservatives did not understand the real nature of politics for many years and certainly did not begin to teach it systematically until the early 1970s. Many conservatives today haven't learned it yet. Please bear with me as I begin with the important historical background. I'll get to the key concepts soon enough. What was the greatest difference between conservatives who supported Barry Goldwater in 1964 and those who supported Ronald Reagan in 1980? Most people don't know the answer. The majority today aren't old enough to remember the 1964 presidential campaign, but Barry Goldwater's book, The Conscience of a Conservative, is still available and widely read. Fortunately, most people still remember Ronald Reagan and his conservative principles. Anyone who supported Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980 can tell you that there was no significant difference in philosophy between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. You can see this for yourself. If you read The Conscience of a Conservative, published in 1960, you will see that Barry Goldwater's positions on public policy issues then were very close to those of Ronald Reagan in 1980. I can tell you from my personal experiences in the 1964 Goldwater campaign and in the 1980 Reagan campaign that there was one great difference between the approach to politics of the Goldwater supporters and the Reagan supporters 16 years later. The difference was that we Goldwater supporters tended to believe that being right, in the sense of being correct, was sufficient to win. We firmly believed that if we could prove we were right, if we could logically demonstrate that our candidate was of higher character and that his policies would be better for our country, somehow victory would fall to our deserving hands like a ripe fruit off of a tree. That's not the real nature of politics. I call that misconception the Sir Galahad theory: "I will win because my heart is pure." Do you know what was the most used slogan of the Goldwater campaign? It was this: "In your heart, you know he's right." Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way, as we who supported Goldwater found out when Lyndon Johnson trounced us. Johnson got 41 million votes and Goldwater got 27 million votes. To this day I'm convinced Barry Goldwater would have been a better President for the United States than Lyndon Johnson, but Lyndon Johnson won big. Some Goldwater conservatives were so shocked and disappointed that they dropped out of politics and were never seen again. But not all of the Goldwater people left. Many of us stayed involved. Lots of us travelled similar paths and wound up working together. In 1964, I had served as the youngest elected Goldwater Delegate to the Republican National Convention. The next year, 1965, I came to Washington to be executive director of the national College Republicans. Others with solid Goldwater pedigrees moved into the national scene at about the same time. A young Goldwater supporter named Richard Viguerie came to Washington in 1965 and created his direct mail firm. He soon became the nationally dominant consultant in political direct mail and is still a leader in that field today. Another notable young conservative, Ed Feulner, also came to Washington in 1965, to work for a think tank. Then he became a leading conservative congressional staffer. Now he is president of the massive and effective Heritage Foundation. Another young Goldwater supporter, Paul Weyrich, came to Washington the next year, in 1966, to serve as press secretary for a conservative U.S. Senator from Colorado. Weyrich soon became the key conservative expert on politics on Capitol Hill. He later became America's most successful organizer of conservative organizations and institutions, playing a key role for more than 40 years in founding important new groups. All of us had supported Goldwater, but none of us was prominent in his campaign. In fact, none us even knew each other until we got to the D.C. area and began to build our own national reputations as fighters in different ways for conservative principles. But in those days, our past support of the Goldwater campaign was a priceless credential among fellow conservatives. Lee Edwards, a friend of mine who served as Director of Information in the 1964 Goldwater campaign had founded in 1965 what was probably the D.C. area's only conservative public relations firm. Now Dr. Edwards, he has become the nation's foremost historian and biographer of the conservative movement. In May 1972, Edwards introduced me to Richard Viguerie. A week later Viguerie hired me away from the conservative think tank where I then worked in D.C. He said, "Morton, I want you to come help me build a conservative movement." Richard Viguerie meant what he said, and his words were music to my ears because building a conservative movement was exactly what I wanted to do. Soon, with my help as his political assistant, Richard began to gather frequently a small group of experienced, totally reliable conservatives who were serious about trying to figure out how to win for conservative principles. Included in our meetings were those I have named, including Lee Edwards, and others whom we believed shared our conservative principles and our determination eventually to win for those principles in government, politics, and the news media. We were tired of losing. We discussed what had worked well for the political left, why conservatives had lost so many political battles, and what conservatives might do to win in the future. It came down to this: What is the real nature of politics? Here was our first great conclusion: Being right in the sense of being correct is not sufficient to win. You don't win just because your heart is pure, even if you can prove logically that you are right. What, then, does determine victory? In our frequent meetings and discussions, we came to our second great conclusion: The winner in a political contest over time is determined by the number and the effectiveness of the activists and leaders on the respective sides. That fundamental understanding changed our thinking. It explains why the side that's right doesn't necessarily win. Next we considered the vital question of what determines the number and effectiveness of the activists and leaders on a given side. Clearly, numbers and effectiveness do not depend on which side is right. Our third great conclusion was: The number and effectiveness of the activists and leaders on a given side in a political contest is determined by the political technology used by that side. That explains a lot of political history, including why bad causes, like communism, attracted a lot of activists. The people on the political left used effective political technology. In contrast, most conservatives had relied on proving we are right. Political technology can be roughly divided into communication technology and organization technology, with no neat line of separation between communication and organization. Most political technology is philosophically neutral. Techniques which work for the left can work for conservatives. Techniques which work for Republicans can work for Democrats, and vice versa. Similar techniques can work whether a public policy battle is an election or a legislative battle over tax rates, the right to keep and bear arms, abortion, or any other issue. In the 1970s, when we made what were for us these discoveries about the real nature of politics, we saw this new understanding as a terrific insight which could lead to victory for conservative principles in the public policy process of government, politics, and the news media. But because most political technology is philosophically neutral, most people who are deeply committed philosophically tend to disdain to study or use political technology. Instinctively, people devoted to their political principles tend to think learning mere skills is beneath their dignity because techniques are philosophically neutral. Such people are, after all, thinking about and proving their wonderful, deeply held views on important public policy questions. Is abortion the murder of tiny babies? What must be done to stop the spread of worldwide communism? What must be done to keep big government from destroying economic liberty and prosperity? "They will take my gun only by prying it from my cold dead fingers. God made man, but Winchester made men equal!" Serious questions. Serious people can get very excited about issues and philosophic differences, but they instinctively tend to think poorly of the study or practice of philosophically neutral skills. Political technology is composed of a universe of specific techniques. Of course, not all political techniques are philosophically neutral. Terror is an evil technique used most commonly by the left. Communists famously and effectively use terror to grab power and keep it. But most political technology has no inherent philosophical content. How you design a piece of political literature, how you raise funds, how you organize a precinct, how you attract a crowd to a political event, how you communicate to a mass audience online -- those techniques can work for anybody. You may wonder now what I mean by techniques. Most of the most useful techniques don't involve complex computer programming. Let me use, for example, the techniques available for something as simple as a nametag. How often have you seen pre-printed nametags which begin, in big letters, with "HELLO, MY NAME IS"? That's a bad technique. The printed message is useless, and it takes space on the nametag which could be used for communication. How many times have you attended meetings where someone has thoughtfully printed nametags for everyone in advance, in letters about the size a typewriter would produce? That's a bad technique because it wastes space which be used for communication. How many times have you had to write your name on a nametag with a thin-line ballpoint pen? That's a bad technique because a name written by a wide-line, felt-tip pen is easier to read. Often people print or write names on nametags in all capital letters. That's a bad technique because capitalizing only the first letters makes the nametag easier to read. The name on a nametag should comfortably fill the entire space available. Where do you place a nametag? Most people instinctively place their nametags on their left shoulders. Wrong. The best place for your nametag is on your right shoulder, where people can most easily read it when you extend your right hand to greet them. Thousands of known techniques work. Very few techniques in politics are as complex as rocket science. Most are as simple as learning the types of print font which are easiest to read or what I have said about nametags. The right techniques can make you more effective in everything you work to achieve. Each good technique you use in politics makes it more likely that you will win. But many philosophically committed conservatives tend to believe that being right, in the sense of being correct, is sufficient to win. Those of us who began to meet in 1972 discovered the real nature of politics: The winner in a political contest over time is determined by the number and the effectiveness of the activists and leaders on the respective sides, and, The number and the effectiveness of the activists and leaders on a given side is determined by the political technology that side employs. We knew that many of our conservative allies thought otherwise and that we would have to persuade them differently. Here is how we convinced many of them. We shared with them our analysis of the real nature of politics, and then said, "If that is true, you owe it to your philosophy to study how to win. You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win. You have a moral obligation to learn how to win." If you allow your opposition to learn better how to organize and communicate than you do and they implement that technology, they will beat you no matter how right you are -- and you don't deserve to win. That is a persuasive argument. When you talk in terms of a moral obligation, you're talking in terms people can understand if they have a strong philosophical commitment. We began to have success teaching committed conservatives this, the real nature of politics, and it had a remarkable and sudden impact. New groups begin to spring up in a wide range of issue areas. A wide variety of specialized organizations: educational foundations, legal defense foundations, lobbying organizations, and political action committees. Conservatives began to study how to win. Existing conservative organizations also began to grow very rapidly. For example, in 1972, one of the biggest, most effective, most famous, most respected and even most feared organizations on the conservative side was the National Right to Work Committee. In 1972 they had 25,000 members, and they were thought of as really big stuff. Then they began to study and use communication and organization technology. They began to grow throughout the 1970s, from 25,000 members in 1972 to 1.7 million National Right to Work Committee members in 1979. Then they really were big and could affect policy in a major way. At first a handful of new conservative groups started. Then dozens. Then conservatives started hundreds of new national and local groups. Each new or newly large group contributed an increase in the number and the effectiveness of conservative activists and leaders. By 1980 conservatives had the political muscle across the country not only to nominate Ronald Reagan for President but to elect him. That wasn't the first time Reagan had run for President. I was a Reagan alternate Delegate in the presidential campaign of 1968, when he made his first, brief run for President. Again I was a Reagan alternate Delegate in 1976, when he ran against President Ford for the nomination and almost won. By 1980 the conservative movement had grown remarkably. Reagan won nomination convincingly and then won election. And I got to serve three years on the Reagan White House Staff. All of this is of central importance for you because the potential for growth of conservative political strength still exists. The rapid, spontaneous growth of grassroots conservative activity in 2009 and 2010 proves that. It turns out that the more groups you have and the greater the number of people you activate and teach how to be effective, the more power that you have to impact on the public policy process. I don't have to tell you how often Supreme Court decisions on liberal versus conservative issues are now decided on a five to four basis. The next Congress is likely to be closely divided between conservatives and the left, with many congressional elections decided by only a handful of votes. The next presidential election is likely to be very close. The margins of victory in the American public policy process may be smaller now than at any other time in American history. You can make a difference, now and in the future. The number of American conservative activists and leaders is certainly growing. To grow in effectiveness, they must study how to win. My Leadership Institute now offers 40 types of training schools in the public policy process. You can review those 40 types of schools at LeadershipInstitute.org. For the first time, political training for conservatives is available online, on demand, and free 24 hours a day. Other conservative organizations also offer worthwhile training you should consider. Nothing would be more disappointing politically than for conservatives to lose because of avoidable mistakes. So I urge you, remember the real nature of politics and the clinching argument which has revived the power of conservative principles in America: You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win. You have a moral obligation to learn how to win. Morton C. Blackwell is the president of the Leadership Institute. Having worked actively in politics for more than forty years, he has probably trained more political activists than any other conservative.>

As America's Independence Day approaches, let's treasure those that let freedom ring. Commitment to conservative causes, for some, are a lifetime calling. In the 1980s, George Landrith was a political science and economics major at conservative Brigham Young University and, later, business editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics at the University of Virginia School of Law. Since school, George's fight for liberty continues. He was admitted as a member of the United States Supreme Court bar, ran for federal office, elected to local office, appointed by the Virginia governor to a business council, and served as senior staff for two organizations in the conservative movement. “As long as I can remember, I knew of the Leadership Institute,” George said. “When I was involved in campaigns as a volunteer, the best candidates seemed to have young staffers who had been trained at the Leadership Institute,” George said. “So when I was recruited to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in the early 1990s, I wanted to make sure I had the best possible team. That meant I wanted my staff and volunteers trained by LI. I also made sure my consultant was LI-trained. He helped me obtain a solid staff and volunteer team all of whom were top LI trainees.” George continued, “I was naturally a conservative and I had a solid working knowledge of conservative principles and why they matter in public policy discussions. But I had no idea of the political technology that was needed to be employed to take those conservative principles and turn them into an effective and compelling campaign. The Leadership Institute provided me with the training and knowledge to organize and run an effective campaign and create the opportunities to get my message out despite being outspent about 4-to-1.” He learned a lot from his campaign loss. “While I did not win my congressional election, it was a very, very close race and the incumbent, who had won by almost 40 points only two years earlier, won by only the slimmest of margins. Despite the loss, I learned a great deal about public policy and the conservative movement,” George said. “As a result, I began working at a conservative think-tank and have spent my professional life promoting the vision of the founders. Additionally, I've had the privilege of teaching at the Leadership Institute's various schools.” George believes in training the next generation of conservative leaders. As an LI faculty member, George has shared his expertise at more than 15 LI trainings from Future Candidate Schools to Public Relations Schools to Campaign Management Schools, and he is an adjunct professor teaching constitutional law, appellate advocacy, and legal writing to future attorneys at George Mason School of Law. George was elected to the school board in Virginia's Albemarle County, and served children and the community in this capacity for three years. He was later appointed by Governor George Allen and confirmed by the General Assembly to the Virginia Workforce 2000 Advocacy Council. From 1997-1999, George served as vice president and general counsel to the National Legal Center for the Public Interest. Since 1998, George has led Frontiers of Freedom as its president. This educational institute promotes conservative public policy based on the principles of individual freedom, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and traditional American values as found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “I work on a wide variety of issues in hopes of bringing conservative principles and solutions to the general public, opinion leaders, and policy makers,” George told the Leadership Institute. “All of my work relates to one or more of the ten tenets which defines and shapes all of our work at Frontiers of Freedom.” To boot, George is a frequent TV and radio guest sharing freedom with all who will listen. He's been quoted in more than 100 newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, National Review, the Washington Post, and Human Events. He also authored On Politics and Policy: Views on Freedom from an American Conservative. “The Leadership Institute trains conservatives of all ages how to be more effective conservatives – how to organize and campaign more effectively, how to reach out through the media with greater impact, and how to speak more convincingly,” George said. “They teach college students how to organize and create conservative student publications. They teach campaign workers, managers, press secretaries, and candidates how do their jobs effectively and with high impact. They teach aspiring journalists and reporters the skills needed to be successful. To me the value of the Leadership Institute is that it teaches conservatives how to make their message the winning message.” Do you want a “winning” message? Enroll in an upcoming training. LI offers training in 50 states and dozens of countries each year. Please go here to register for an already-scheduled training or contact LI to request training in your area. Please welcome George Landrith as LI's Graduate of the Week. To nominate a Leadership Institute graduate to be featured as LI's graduate of the week, please contact LI's External Affairs Officer Lauren Hart at LaurenHart@LeadershipInstitute.org.

The Leadership Institute hosted more than 50 conservatives at its rigorous four-day Campaign Management School, part of LI's monthly campaign training series. Lectures ran eight to 10 hours Monday through Thursday, covering everything from political research to buying and developing effective paid media.Adrian Guillory, who recently worked on the Ron Paul 2012 campaign in Louisiana as an intern, was one conservative who attended. The budding activist said, “This was a fun training from leading conservative campaign experts who provide invaluable lessons to achieve election victory.”Day One:Topics included: campaign research, writing a campaign plan, campaign finance, developing a message, polling basics, and campaign structure/organization.Jason Torchinsky, a partner at Holtzman Vogel PLCC, lectured on campaign finance. The lecture explored concepts such as finance-related steps to building a successful campaign, limits, rules, reporting, record keeping, and handling filed complaints.Fred Mullner, an environmental engineer with Eastman Chemical said, “Jason's experience was very obvious and lent a practical aspect to an otherwise very dry subject.” Fred hopes to use the teaching to gain knowledge on how to raise campaign funds successfully.Day Two:Topics included: vote targeting, handling negative information, building coalitions/recruiting volunteers, and contacting voters with phones.Shannon Burns, CEO of Victory Solutions, has dedicated himself and his company to developing technology that empowers conservative causes. In his lecture, Shannon demonstrated the essential nature of phones, how to set up a phone bank, and how to write scripts for volunteers to use when making campaign calls.Governor John Kasich's Regional Liaison Sandra Brasington, a training attendee, found his lecture helpful.“Shannon helped the audience understand clearly the power of phones and voter contacts in campaigns – an aspect that cannot be ignored no matter the size of the race,” Sandra said.Day Three:Topics included: fundraising with events, building a fundraising machine, writing a finance plan, funding a campaign with direct mail, voter mapping, developing a get out the vote effort, and door-to-door strategies.Dan Morgan, president of Morgan, Meredith & Associates, a full-service fundraising firm he founded in 1987, delivered the lecture titled, “Writing a Finance Plan.” During his lecture, Dan emphasized the importance of creating event committees, who to invite (as donors) to a fundraiser, and ways to make a campaign stand out.Day Four:Topics included: latest campaign technologies, compelling voter mail, new rules of paid media, hiring and firing consultants, basics of paid media, tips on handling earned media, and fine tuning a campaign strategy.Tim Wesolek, an executive account manager for NBC25/WHAG-TV, lectured on buying paid media and advice on how to do candidate versus issue ads.Tom Grimes, a Tea Party affiliate from South Bend, Indiana, is no stranger to LI trainings. “This is my fifth LI workshop,” Tom said. “I'm looking forward to building my knowledge to increase my credibility when working with candidates.”Another attendee, Jim Knowlton, said, “This is probably the best training available.” Jim plans on using what he learned to help local state senate and house campaigns. If you are interested in taking LI's monthly campaign trainings, please contact Political Training Coordinator Heather Homan at Heather.Homan@LeadershipInstitute.org>

Just like a Jillian Michaels workout, networking can be tough. Similar to staying in shape, your network is something that can whittle away if you don't actively work at it.And if you're anything like me, networking does not come naturally. I used to be extremely shy, and I didn't see myself ever changing. But I have changed, and so can you! Here are some tips I've found helpful in maximizing my networking skills.1. Practice "let's pretend."Ask yourself, "What would the ideal networker do in this situation?" Pretend that you are that person, and do it. As you consciously emulate good networkers, you can reinvent yourself. You'll never be perfect, but you can make steps that take you closer and closer to becoming a networking guru.2. Adopt a role model.Best case scenario, your role model is also your mentor, helping you, advising you, guiding you, even lending you his network as you build your own. If you can, ask her how she got to where she is now. Attend events with him and take mental notes.3. Take lessons.You're taking one now as you read this blog, but there are other educational opportunitites that are helpful for overcoming shyness and inexperience. Attend lectures and trainings, such as the Conservative Intern Workshop and the Conservative Career Workshop run by the Leadership Institute, to learn tips for feeling more comfortable in networking situations.4. Join up.Just about any group or organization offers opportunities to make contacts and grow personally and professionally, which you can tailor to your career and your personal hobbies. Join political groups, teach Sunday school, and, of course, take a fitness class at your local gym. Surround yourself with people you aspire to be more like. Networking doesn't just happen at stuffy cocktail parties. Look for fun opportunities to meet other people.5. Have a little faith......in yourself. Dale Carnegie summed it up well: "You can make more friends in two months by becoming really interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you. Which is another way of saying that the way to make a friend is to be one." Remember that networking is a two-way street. Your motivations do not have to be selfish. Focus on establishing relationships.I send you off with a maxim from networking expert Harvey Mackay: "The more you exercise your networking muscles, the stronger they get - and the easier networking becomes." Give yourself opportunities to practice, and have patience while learning.>

The Leadership Institute recently hosted 29 conservatives in a television training that focused on the necessary techniques to equip activists when working with the media. Attendees learned to techniques usable on TV broadcasts, in radio interviews, and in online forums. The training was led by Beverly Hallberg, founder and president of District Media Group, where she produces, directs, edits, and serves as a media trainer for news corporations. Over the course of the day, students learned what to do -- and not to do -- in TV appearances. Lectures ranged from wardrobe choices to nonverbal behaviors. Mike Wooten, a student at the training, is a veteran Marine running for an elected school board position in Prince William County, Virginia after an incumbent resigned. Wishing to improve the quality of education for the kids in his district, Mike will soon put his training to the test. He said the most important lesson he learned was the understanding of “how to give the media what they want by understanding the various formats” of broadcasting. Young Americans for Liberty intern Eric Phillips described the TV training as “Vital if you want to win for your philosophy,” which is an unintentional play off one of the Leadership Institute's paramount maxims. If you would like to attend a Leadership Institute TV training, please register online at www.LeadershipInstitute.org/training or contact Rachel Phillips to set up one-on-one, individualized training.

On Wednesday, June 6, more than 100 Leadership Institute supporters, graduates, faculty, and staff welcomed South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson to address June's Wednesday Wake-Up Club Breakfast. Rep. Wilson is no stranger to the Leadership Institute. He is a notable graduate of LI's 2002 and 2005 One-On-One Television Workshop as well as a member of LI's Congressional Advisory Board. “The Leadership Institute has made such a difference for our country giving young conservative the skills to go home and make a difference. And you [LI] are making a difference,” said Rep. Wilson. Rep. Wilson energized the crowd with his support of Governor Scott Walker in the wake of his victory, saying, “Walker's win should inspire political leaders across the country, and it does.” Rep. Wilson encouraged young people throughout the country to get involved in this fall's election. He went on to share how proud he is of American troops, including his sons, all of whom currently serve in the United States military. He also expressed his disappointment in the current President's actions against our military. “Our military has never been more at risk. They are facing an 8 to 12 percent cut. This is the smallest our military has been since 1939,” Rep. Wilson explained. He then added, “Our troops are so dedicated and so committed...I truly believe we have got the best troops. The personnel are the best ever.” “This fall we will regain victory,” Rep. Wilson said in an optimistic closing to his talk. “We are seeing changes in our lifetime we never could have imagined 25 years ago. Below is a photo of LI's Summer Interns with Rep. Wilson. The Leadership Institute's Wednesday Wake-Up Club Breakfast is held the first Wednesday of each month and is an excellent opportunity for friends of the Institute to meet leading conservative speakers and hear their thoughts on current affairs over good food and fellowship with conservative friends. The next Wednesday Wake-Up Club Breakfast is scheduled for August 1, 2012 and will feature Mallory Factor, President of MALLORY FACTOR INC. Mallory is also the founder and co-chair of The Monday Meeting, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Click here for more information and to register.

Next week the Pro-Life Action League will host the Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally in cities across America. The group's rally in March had more than 63,000 people from 146 cities standing up for religious freedom. Expectations are even higher for the rally June 8. “We hope to have 100,000 participants in over 150 cities,” Pro-Life Action League Development Director Paige Scarlett, also a Leadership Institute graduate, said. “This rally is a campaign that's sweeping our nation to build awareness about the threats to our constitutional right to ‘freedom of religion' posed by the Obama Administration's Health and Human Services mandate.” “The administration's newest mandate forces religious employers, such as Catholic hospitals and schools to provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception in employee healthcare plans for free – even though these all go directly against the employer's religious beliefs,” Paige said. “We are standing up for our constitutional rights that our Founding Fathers fought and died for, and one of those is the right to freedom of religion without interference by government.” The 30-year-old organization Pro-Life Action League leads sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics, helps students start pro-life clubs, and investigates abortion clinic violations, which has led to the closing of numerous facilities. “I get to work alongside the ‘godparents' of the pro-life movement on a daily basis, Joe and Ann Scheidler,” Paige said. “I am inspired by their tireless grassroots efforts to fight abortion since 1973 and keep it a sizzling, hot-button issue in our country.” Paige has worked at Pro-Life Action League since January, but never imagined she would go to college and be working. “My girlish hope and dream was to get married young and have a big family,” Paige, the oldest of a family of seven Catholic and conservative children, said. “But God had other plans for me. He wanted me to go to college and work in the pro-life movement – and save babies before I had any of my own!” In college, Paige was asked to assist the development director at The Thomas Moore College of Liberal Arts in Merrimack, New Hampshire, where she worked for a semester and a summer. Another summer, Paige raised money for the Crossroads Life Walk Across America, during which she walked 50 miles in five days for the cause of life. She's also been known to frequent abortion clinics and pray outside them (pictured right). Paige next became the development director for Foundation for Life in Toledo, Ohio where she served for 3.5 years after graduation before taking the development director job at Pro-Life Action League in Chicago, where she now works. “I first learned of the Leadership Institute through a friend who worked for your group,” Paige remembered. “She introduced me to LI, and coincidentally, I stayed with her a few days after my Crossroads Pro-Life Walk to Washington, D.C. – and even visited LI's office to ‘shadow' her for a couple days.” “I also knew of LI's fundraising trainings through my former job at Foundation for Life, but the Pro-Life Action League found it valuable enough to invest in sending me to it,” Paige said. “The League sent two other staff members to your direct mail school trainings a few years ago and they learned numerous best practices we have used into our communications ever since.” Paige took LI's High-Dollar Fundraising School in April, the Online Fundraising Workshop in April, and the Direct Mail School and Advanced Direct Mail School, both earlier this month. “The Leadership Institute has been a positive way to enhance my previous development know-how, hone my skills and judgment in the area of best approaches for fundraising, and boost my ability to share these successful tactics I learned with my fellow staffers, so we can make a team commitment to use LI's well-tested fundraising methods to keep our organization's mission very sustainable,” Paige said. “LI trainings are a survey in development approaches engagingly presented by a panel of experts. These professionals are dynamic, well-organized leaders in the field,” Paige said. “They're smart advocates of the conservative movement, looking to advance the cause, and are relevant and attuned to the best of current and tried-and-true styles of development.” “At the High Dollar Fundraising School, I learned that my organization needs to become ever more donor-centric – listening to the interests and desires of our donor-base and even using their wishes to shape our new or ongoing programs and just the way we pitch our message,” Paige reflected. “At the Online Fundraising Workshop, I learned new ways to tackle search engines to reach out to and hook a new audience through targeted ad spots,” Paige said. “I was enlightened on ways to go about delving into the internet market to attract and plug new supporters into our cause through the use of new media.” “At LI's direct mail schools (intro and advanced), I learned not only the importance of prospecting to find new donors, how to cultivate these new donors, and how to appeal to and engage your current donors, but how to do so most effectively, with the biggest chance of success,” Paige reported. “The key is to make all your touches (whether by mail, phone, or email) highly personal and focused on the impact that the donor makes possible. The donor needs to feel like an invested partner whose generosity truly saves lives.” And saving lives is the business of Pro-Life Action League. “In a challenging economy, it's necessary more than ever to know what works well and what doesn't as it is mission critical with fundraising. It could mean the difference between your group staying afloat, gaining momentum, or sinking. At LI's training, they give you tools and tips to take your organization's fundraising approaches from your baseline to the next level,” Paige said. Paige joins more than 107,000 alumni trained by the Leadership Institute since 1979. Please welcome her as LI's Graduate of the Week. For more information about Pro-Life Action League and their rally June 8, please contact Paige at 773-777-2900. To nominate a Leadership Institute graduate to be featured as LI's graduate of the week, please contact LI's External Affairs Officer Lauren Hart at LaurenHart@LeadershipInstitute.org.