Advice to the GOP: Narrow it Down and Draw Some Emotion

handI’ve long been arguing that conservatives are generally right on principle, but tend not to be that smart when it comes to politics. Conversely, I believe that liberals are generally wrong on (or lacking in) principle, but tend to be pretty shrewd politicians.

One doesn’t have to look hard to find proof of this.

We live in a country in which nearly twice as many people describe themselves as conservatives as do liberals, and conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 of our 50 states. Yet, arguably the most liberal president in United States history won re-election after doubling our national debt,  giving us a highly unpopular healthcare law, and leaving us with the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression.

Even after having been exposed as lying repeatedly to the American public about consequential, core tenets of the increasingly unfavorable Affordable Care Act, some national polls are actually beginning to show Obama’s job performance numbers on the rise. Additionally, the Democratic Party that gave us Obamacare is starting to regain the advantage in the 2014 Generic Congressional Ballot.

Even though some polls are showing that Democratic Senate candidates are in trouble in red states, the Republican Party just can’t seem to gain a foothold with the electorate on the national level.

I don’t think anyone can deny that the GOP brand is still in trouble.

A lot of the public’s negative perception of the Republican Party can be attributed, of course, to a national media that routinely promotes the Democrats. They lend credence to goofy, anti-GOP narratives like the War on Women, they purposely misrepresent the conservative viewpoint on important issues, and they hold Republican politicians to a far different standard of scrutiny than they do Democratic politicians.

That being said, the Republicans also have an undeniable knack for stringing themselves up like pinatas and handing over beating-sticks to the Democrats and the media to use on them. They make careless comments that can easily be taken out of context or misinterpreted, they pursue no-win political strategies, and they continue to subscribe to the false notion that the electorate interprets things logically. That’s not what today’s electorate does.

Today’s electorate acts largely on emotion because there just isn’t an appetite to research issues and use critical thinking to determine which approach makes sense. There’s an intellectual laziness in today’s culture that keeps people from wading through all of the propaganda and bumper-sticker slogans to discover what is real and what isn’t.

Republicans need to accept this, and learn to appeal to people’s emotions rather than relying on their ability to recognize the big picture. Defending the merits of a free market, low taxes, small government, the rule of law, and individual freedoms unfortunately doesn’t resonate with people the way it used to.

While those doctrines should continue to be promoted, and hot topic issues like Obamacare should keep being addressed, the GOP should also begin applying their conservative principles to narrow, emotionally-charged issues that they can run on. I’m talking about ones that resonate with people by evoking an impulsive reaction.

The Democrats used this tactic when they concocted the War on Women campaign, painting an inaccurate yet effective picture of Republicans trying to steal women’s contraceptives.

The Republicans should follow suit, but in the context of legitimate issues – not fabricated ones.

Charles Krauthammer recently wrote a column in which he suggests that Republicans should take a loud and firm stance on outlawing late-term abortion. Narrowing the pro-life argument down to “late-term” abortion puts forth an issue that Democrats would have a hard time arguing against, even in a country that is pretty evenly split when it comes to the general view of abortion. When the conversation changes to third- or late-second trimester abortions, how can even the most liberal of individuals deny that two human beings are involved? Thus, how could Democratic politicians possibly defend the practice (which their liberal base will expect them to do) and not face overwhelming public resistance?

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. From a Dead Sleep by John A. Daly

Krauthammer’s idea showcases a bite-sized, easy-to-understand, consensus-driven snippet of a broader conservative belief. It appeals to people’s reflexive sense of right and wrong. It’s also the kind of issue (of which there are many) that can give the Republican party the foothold they need to expand to a larger narrative – in this case, the sanctity of life.

Such a tactic shouldn’t be limited to social issues. It should be applied to fiscal issues, foreign policy, and domestic policy such as immigration.

If the Republicans can use a little creativity as the Democrats have, and design their messaging to evoke an emotional reaction and not just a logical one, they’ll undoubtedly do themselves a lot of good.

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration, and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. His first novel, entitled "From a Dead Sleep", is now on sale! He lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website: http://www.johndalybooks.com/
  • Rose

    I seem to be annoying John Daly and putting him on the defensive. Guess he is used to ditto-head types who never question his assertions and pronouncements. He seems to be in full retreat…and that can mean only one thing. I won!

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Full retreat? Rose, you were annihilated. You won like Apollo Creed “won” against Ivan Drago.

  • Rose

    Discussing with John Daly is a challenge due to his over-sized ego and generally cantankerous demeanor.

    I said, >>Most poor people have the idea that you think they are lazy,
    stupid mooches who want a handout.

    He answered: Really? Care to provide some evidence of that? I think most poor people in this country were having an easier time under Bush than they’ve been having under Obama. That were a lot fewer of them back then to.

    I say: well, there was that little Romney snafu over the 47% which seemed to have cost him credibility and votes with the poor. That might count as “evidence” of a gap in trust between the poor and the Republican Party. Care to provide some “evidence” that poor people were better off under Bush? You have not done so thus far. You just presume to speak for those individuals who are poor. What you may think about the Bush glory days has nothing to do with what poor people think. Do you think that most poor people voted for Obama or Romney? Several on these boards say that the poor vote for Democrats because of freebies and handouts. Surely you have heard many right wingers obsessing over IbamaPhones. You might want to comment on these points instead of getting in a snit.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Quick question: Is there a reason why you keep referring to me in the third person? I assume you’re responding to me, but your arguments and the way you present them are so bizarre, I’m starting to believe you’re talking to an imaginary friend.

      >>well, there was that little Romney snafu over the 47% which seemed to have cost him credibility and votes with the poor

      Did it? Did you take a poll of poor people, or are you just buying into a media narrative?

      >>That might count as “evidence” of a gap in trust between the poor and the Republican Party

      A guess by you is “evidence”? Talk about an ego.

      >>Care to provide some “evidence” that poor people were better off under Bush?

      Yeah. There were less of them, more people were working, and salaries were better.

      >>You just presume to speak for those individuals who are poor.

      Isn’t that what you did?

      >>What you may think about the Bush glory days has nothing to do with what poor people think.

      How would you know?

      >>Do you think that most poor people voted for Obama or Romney?

      I have no idea. That info isn’t recorded.

      • Rose

        John Daly, I am glad that you finally admitted what many on these boards will not. There is no evidence whatsoever that poor people and other minorities voted for Obama in droves because of welfare, handouts, food stamps, obama phones or anything of that nature. Thank you for being honest. Poor people and minorities voted for Obama because of his policies and programs or for Romney for the same reason. Poor people love their country just as much as rich people do and are perfectly capable of sorting out issues in a rational, unselfish manner. Each individual votes after considering the candidates and making judgments about his character, credibility and policies. People are not duped or fooled or badgered into voting one way or the other. They make assessments, and voters are never wrong. Just because more voters voted for Obama does not mean more voters were wrong. Like the customer, the voter is always right. Any candidate or party that does not make his/her case to the voters does not deserve to win. And the voters whose candidate lost should accept the outcome. It is the American way. Sour grapes and sore losers are really very unAmerican. The Loyal Opposition has turned into the DisLoyal Obstructionists these days.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          >>John Daly, I am glad that you finally admitted what many on these boards will not.

          FINALLY admitted it? When did I ever say otherwise?

          >>People are not duped or fooled or badgered into voting one way or the other.

          A LOT of people absolutely are, Rose. There’s a reason why President Obama lied to the electorate about Obamacare over and over again. There’s a reason why Obama and Clinton lied about Benghazi. There’s a reason why the media protects Democrats and rakes Republicans over the coals. Insisting that none of that stuff makes a difference is beyond ignorant.

        • Darren Perkins

          The problem here is that Obama lied consistently and often when running for office… BOTH TIMES. If what he purported to do when elected had been done then I could understand why he got re-elected (i.e. bring GOP and DEMS together, transparency.. etc. etc. ) . This guy did the exact opposite and nobody cared apparently because he was really good at dividing people and running a completely opaque administration. He rammed through the disaster that is the ACA without a single republican vote and absolutely no debate. I should say the mainstream media didn’t care because he was achieving what they wanted by handling things in this manner. Far from bringing together the two sides he completely demonized the GOP. He has nearly doubled the debt he inherited that was already at an ‘unpatriotic level’ before he took office. That money went to the folks at Solyndra and other businesses that went belly up. Oh it also went to bail out car manufacturers(because he was not going to let down the Unions that got him elected. Too many union jobs to be lost.),banks, and to create ‘shovel ready’ jobs which turned out to not be so ‘shovel ready’. The voters were wrong. I think a lot of them are seeing that now.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Good post. Unfortunately, Rose will read it, disregard every point you made, and tell you that your “real” problem with Obama is that he’s black. That’s what she does.

  • Rose

    Mr. daly insists that he employs reason and logic and eschews emotion, yet even the hint of support for family unleashes in him the leap to images of just-born infants being strangled/bashed in the head or otherwise murdered by vicious doctors. As fond as he is of statistics, he offers no incited into when and where this happens, how often it happens, etc. It is emotional, dramatic, gut-wrenching rhetoric that he inflicts on women who dare to favor the use of contraceptives, hope to plan their families instead of leaving it up to The Lord and who might be interested in the morning after pill. I would say that Mr. daly is quite the drama King when it suits his purpose of trying to shock or shame women into submission. Bet the idea of vaginal probes appeals to him, too.

    • Rose

      I obviously meant that women who are interested in family planning set off John Daly. He gets extremely emotional and equates controlling reproductive abilities to murdering babies. Wonder how many children he has. I have two, the number unplanned for and wanted. It is the responsible way to live.

      • Rose

        The number I planned for and wanted. I have no unwanted or unplanned children. If I had gotten pregnant by accident, I would have had the child, but I am educated, lave a living husband and am financially secure. Not all women are in
        That position and I do not presume to tell them what to do.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          I are you arguing with me or someone else?

          • Rose

            Please try to follow a train of thought all the way to the caboose, John. My point is that family planning does not necessarily mean having an abortion. In one of your grandiose essays you accused me of really meaning abortion when I mentioned family planning. One never knows what right wingers think these days. Some of your fellow Repubs actually think contraception is wrong and many advocate Dugger-size families. Since you have such strong opinions about choice versus pro-life issues, I think it is valid to question your own family size and it indicates that you and your wife gave considerable thought to the number of children you wanted, could afford, etc.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>John. My point is that family planning does not necessarily mean having an abortion.

            I never said it did. I asked you to explain what you meant. Why you are having so much trouble doing so is beyond me.

            >>you accused me of really meaning abortion when I mentioned family planning.

            I did no such thing. I asked that you explain what you meant.

            >>some of your fellow Repubs actually think contraception is wrong

            And there’s nothing wrong with them thinking that, unless they’re trying to force others to comply with that belief, which they’re not.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        >>I obviously meant that women who are interested in family planning set off John Daly.

        Actually, I asked what “family planning” meant to you. Don’t blame me for your mind-boggling inability to understand a question.

        >>He gets extremely emotional and equates controlling reproductive abilities to murdering babies.

        I do? That’s news to me.

        >>Wonder how many children he has.

        Two.

        >>I have two, the number unplanned for and wanted.

        Thanks for sharing. Should I pretend to care?

        >>It is the responsible way to live.

        WHAT is the responsible way to live?

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      >>Mr. daly insists that he employs reason and logic and eschews emotion

      Actually, I think you’re getting me confused with Mr. Spock. I said that conservatives generally base their arguments on logic while liberals generally base their arguments on emotion.

      >>yet even the hint of support for family unleashes in him the leap to
      images of just-born infants being strangled/bashed in the head or
      otherwise murdered by vicious doctors.

      What in God’s name are you talking about? Did you start your binge drinking early this weekend?

      >>As fond as he is of statistics,

      I do like statistics.

      >>he offers no incited into when and where this happens, how often it happens, etc.

      Do you want mailing addresses?

      >>It is emotional, dramatic, gut-wrenching rhetoric that he inflicts on women who dare to favor the use of contraceptives,

      Forget the alcohol. You’re tripping on acid. When did I come close to even suggesting that I’m opposed to the use of contraceptives?

      I think you’re getting me confused with another John Daly. Perhaps the golfer or the Olympian?

      >>I would say that Mr. daly is quite the drama King when it suits his purpose of trying to shock or shame women into submission.

      Submission??? Good God, Rose. You’re a freakin lunatic! What are you going to do next, accuse me of wanting women to have vaginal probes?

      >>Bet the idea of vaginal probes appeals to him, too.

      Well there you go.

      I want to thank you, Rose, for demonstrating the complete sham the War on Women is. You’ve represented your left-wing cultist mentality quite nicely.

  • Rose

    Well, I have learned a few things about John Daly. He strenuously objects to sweeping pronouncements about parties or groups…unless he is making them. For example, it is wrong to say that the right is perceived to be racist or anti-gay or warmongers but it is perfectly acceptable to say that the left is incapable of reason, enjoys seeing babies killed at birth and has no real respect for minority voters or sense of fiscal responsibility. His generalizations are fine. Mine are not. I am wrong to imply that many or even some Tea Party members are racist, but he can claim that all Democrats win elections through trickery, lies, cons and the duping if the unwashed masses.

    Mr.daly is well-informed but selectively so. He notices all if my many “errors” but somehow misses those on his side who foretell the future by consulting the biblical Israelites and who chortle at Nugent calling Obama a chimpanzee. He insists that he employs logic and reason, but he is not fond of statistics unless they support his pet theories.

    Mr. Daly instructs me on sexism and blacks on racism. He is very capable of recognizing and defining sexism and racism though he is neither female nor black. He is very happy to help us sort out bigotry and discrimation so that we do not become confused. You see, we are childlike beings of naïveté, emotions and poor thinking skills and quite at sea without an older white male to “teach” us.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      >>Well, I have learned a few things about John Daly.

      Oh, I doubt it.

      >>He strenuously objects to sweeping pronouncements about parties or groups…unless he is making them.

      Not really. I’m just telling you that if you’re going to pick out some random conservative and make him the standard-bearer of the movement, I’m going to go ahead and do the same for you. Is that not fair?

      >>it is wrong to say that the right is perceived to be racist or anti-gay or warmongers but it.

      No. It’s wrong to say that they ARE racist, anti-gay, or warmongers. The perception exists alright. I’m just telling you such perceptions are lame.

      >>it is perfectly acceptable to say that the left is incapable of reason, enjoys seeing babies killed at birth and has no real respect for minority voters or sense of fiscal responsibility.

      The left is not incapable of reason. They just choose not to use it when promoting their beliefs. If they did, they’d get far less support than they do. I don’t believe the left “enjoys” seeing babies killed at birth. I just marvel over how anyone could support such a practice. I believe that people who think that minorities are incapable of acquiring a voter ID card, and living their lives without being dependent on government, do not respect minorities. I believe anyone who believes that we’ve been living in “an era of austerity” while we rack up trillion dollar deficits and over $17 trillion in debt have no sense of fiscal responsibility.

      >>I am wrong to imply that many or even some Tea Party members are racist,

      No. You are wrong to imply that the Tea Party itself is racist. There are racists in this country. They come in the form of multiple ethnicities and multiple political parties (that absolutely include the Democratic Party) because racism is about individuals. You cannot give me a single policy platform of the Tea Party’s that is racist. You can’t even give me an example of a racist act from the Tea Party. The same goes for the Republican party. And the fact that you don’t take that into consideration before branding those movements as racist says a lot about you.

      >>Mr. Daly instructs me on sexism and blacks on racism.

      I don’t “instruct” anyone. I’m telling that you don’t have to be a victim of a specific type of bigotry in order to recognize when that bigotry is real and when it’s not.

      >>we are childlike beings of naïveté, emotions and poor thinking skills
      and quite at sea without an older white male to “teach” us.

      No. YOU are a childlike being who is dangerously naive. Your world view is not representative of a race or gender but rather of a culture of intellectual laziness for which you wholeheartedly subscribe to.

      And how old do you think I am exactly? Every time some lib on here throws the “old white guy” routine at me, they quickly learn that they’re a couple of decades older than I am.

  • Rose

    >>Speaking of personal responsibility,

    I didn’t write anything about personal responsibility.

    >>how can you alienate blacks, women, gays, teachers, Hispanics, other immigrants, the poor, non-Christians and still expect to win?

    Oh brother. I agree that the GOP has squandered opportunity after opportunity to appeal to the gay community, but pretty much everything else you wrote is a caricature.

    Poor people? The are more poor people under Obama than there were under Bush. And how does pursuing pro-growth policies not benefit the poor?

    Alienating teachers? No. Alienating teachers unions? Yes.

    Non-Christians? What are you even talking about?

    Tell me… What exactly has the GOP done to “alienate” racial minorities other than ineffectively fight back against constantly being called racists by the useful idiots from the left?

    Many in the Democratic Party have an unbelievably low opinion of racial minorities. They don’t think they’re smart enough to pick up a free voter ID card. They think that the color of someone’s skin is a predisposition for them requiring government assistance. Conservatives want an environment where people can succeed, and they put faith individuals to build their own success – regardless of the color of their skin.

    There’s nothing racist about that.

    What Democrats have been good at is doing exactly what you just did above: Playing the race card. Unfortunately, that works – especially when the national media is always eager to help substantiate the narrative.

    I find it fascinating that when high-ranking members of the Bush administration like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales took horrendous criticism from the left, NO ONE on he conservative side of the aisle ever claimed racism.

    But somehow, now that we have a black president who happens to be a Democrat, criticism of him is considered to be inherently racist.

    This exchange really highlights the point of my column. I could logically debate you all day long, and make a very compelling, air-tight case. But that would sadly never be as affective as generating an emotional response by just calling someone a racist.

    Democratic politicians understand the power of evoking an emotional response. That’s what I want the GOP to do, but in an honest

    • Rose

      You did not write anything about personal responsibility? Oh, I thought Repubs were very keen on that and that it was the foundation of their party in many ways. You know, the old pull yourself up by the bootstraps thing? Guess I was wrong about that.

      So it is only gays that you can do without? You do not need or want their votes and cheerfully squander opportunities to relate to them. Hmmm seems to me gays get your message loud and clear. Most gays would not vote GOP and certainly not Tea Party. But what about all those other groups? How can they be so mistaken about your love and concern for their welfare? Why don’t they know how much you want to help and encourage and include them? You seem to say they are stupid and hoodwinked by cunning Democrats. Like children, blacks and women and other minorities are too naive or stupid to see what a friend you are to them. They don’t trust you. It isn’t your fault, of course. It is theirs.

      What does the number of poor people have to do with your opinion of them. Most poor people have the idea that you think they are lazy, stupid mooches who want a handout. Wonder where they got that idea?

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        >>You did not write anything about personal responsibility?

        Not in this column. Usually when someone precedes a point with “speaking of…”, that implies that someone was actually speaking about the topic in question.

        >>So it is only gays that you can do without?

        What?

        >>You do not need or want their votes and cheerfully squander opportunities to relate to them.

        Actually, I wrote the exact opposite of that. I’ve long wanted the Republican party to take a libertarian approach on homosexuality. I’ve long wanted them to better appeal to the gay community. There are a lot of gay people who are fiscally conservative and believe in a strong military, and I think that log-cabin Republicans should have a stronger voice within party. I believe the GOP has dropped the ball on that.

        >>Most gays would not vote GOP and certainly not Tea Party

        Especially the Tea Party? Why NOT the Tea Party? The Tea Party is an economic-oriented movement. It’s not about social issues. Do you think gay people don’t care about fiscal solvency?

        >>You seem to say they are stupid and hoodwinked by cunning Democrats.

        What have I written that even remotely suggests that? I’m a gay marriage supporter. I’ve written about that numerous times. I want the Republican party to better appeal to homosexuals as well as other demographics.

        >>Like children, blacks and women and other minorities are too naive or stupid to see what a friend you are to them.

        That’s your assertion. Not mine.

        >>Most poor people have the idea that you think they are lazy,
        stupid mooches who want a handout.

        Really? Care to provide some evidence of that? I think most poor people in this country were having an easier time under Bush than they’ve been having under Obama. That were a lot fewer of them back then to.

    • Rose

      Minorities seldom call the Democratic Party racist. Yet they use the term about Republicans often. Democrats don’t spend a lot of time defending themselves against a racist label because they simply do not carry that burden. The vast majority of blacks and Hispanics think that there is a strong racist undercurrent in the Republican Party. Is that because the democrats are so cunningly manipulative or is it because it is true? Have you no responsibility for your own predicament?

      Can a racist label be eradicated by “explaining” to minorities that you may appear to be against them but you really are just acting in their best interests? When you call them lazy and stupid it is for their own good? When you lecture them about morals and values it is because you want then to rise to your level of holiness? Why would anyone find that off-putting? Do you think that calling Obama and a tar baby just might make some people think you speak for and to racists?

      Should women be impressed by the Akins and Santorums of the world? Should I run out and vote for people who say God wants women to have babies who result from violent rapes? Does any man know what it is like to be pregnant…except for the guy in Oregon who had a fertilized egg implanted in his body and carried the fetus to full term? Thanks to modern medicine many conservative may be able to save babies from abortion not through rhetoric but through the tremendous personal sacrifice of actually carrying and nourishing a child in his own body.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        >>Minorities seldom call the Democratic Party racist. Yet they use the term about Republicans often.

        “They?” Who is “they?” You’re taking entire races of people and insisting that “they” often call Republicans racist? What’s your basis for this claim?

        >>Democrats don’t spend a lot of time defending themselves against a racist label because they simply do not carry that burden.

        They don’t carry that burden for one simple reason: The media doesn’t hold them to the same standard as they do Republicans. Over the years I’ve heard more racially condescending statements from the likes of Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden that I’ve heard from anyone in the upper echelon of the Republican Party (or even the lower echelon). Yet, they get a pass from the media for no other reason than that they have a “D” next to their name.

        This is one of the purest examples of media bias in this country. When you’re a liberal, the liberal-minded media gives you a pass on bigotry. It’s a blatant injustice.

        >>The vast majority of blacks and Hispanics think that there is a strong racist undercurrent in the Republican Party.

        First of all, I’d like to see your evidence that the “vast majority” thinks that. Secondly, when the media is constantly trying to define conservatives as racists, how can that not have an affect on the people who get their information from the media?

        >>Can a racist label be eradicated by “explaining” to minorities that you may appear to be against them but you really are just acting in their best interests?

        If the label were accurate, no. But it’s not accurate, and if you are saying that minorities are too stupid to derive substance from a compelling argument, I think that says a lot about you.

        >>When you call them lazy and stupid it is for their own good?

        Who’s calling them lazy or stupid? That sounds like what you are inferring – not me.

        >>When you lecture them about morals and values it is because you want then to rise to your level of holiness?

        Whose “lecturing” “them” about morals and values? Is that what you think President Obama is now doing with his “My Brother’s Keeper” program?

        >>Do you think that calling Obama and a tar baby just might make some people think you speak for and to racists?

        Who called Obama a tar baby? You?

        >>Should women be impressed by the Akins and Santorums of the world?

        No. Should women be impressed by the “Life of Julia” and the notion that government dependence should be a blueprint for their lives?

        >>Should I run out and vote for people who say God wants women to have babies who result from violent rapes?

        No. Should I run out and vote for people who vote in support of post-birth abortions (the killing of born-alive babies that survive an abortion attempt) like Barack Obama did three times?

        >>Does any man know what it is like to be pregnant

        I don’t think so. Was that a serious question?

        • Rose

          John chastised me for lumping all minorities into one big mountain by using the term they. Then John writes “They don’t carry that burden for one simple reason: The media doesn’t hold them to the same standard as they do Republicans.” He proceeds to lump all Democrats and all media together. Hmmmm he uses they and them with abandon but I should not. Let me take a page from his play book and express true faux outrage. How dare you use the term they to describe all a democrats! Do you think your arrogant use of the word them covers all media! Shameful!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>John chastised me for lumping all minorities into one big mountain by
            using the term they. Then John writes “They don’t carry that burden for
            one simple reason:

            That’s because it’s true. The mainstream media covers Democratic politicians much differently than they cover Republican politicians. Not “some” Democrats – ALL Democrats. Having a “D” next to your name affords a lot of protection in this country.

    • Rose

      Is Colun Powell a good example of a black man who was anointed by and won over by conservatives? He rebelled against Bush/Cheney wars and supported Obama twice. And isn’t it racist to assume that a black Bush appointee should not encounter criticism from any sector? Are token blacks off limits?

      Guess what, John. It is blacks and Hispanics and other minorities who determine who is racist, not you. They know who their friends are and who their enemies are. It is women who judge which men are sexist, not you. Tokens and grand gestures are easily recognized.

      Saying I am not a racist over and over is unconvincing. Methinks thou doth protest too much!

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        >>Is Colun Powell a good example of a black man who was anointed by and
        won over by conservatives? He rebelled against Bush/Cheney wars and
        supported Obama twice.

        Colin Powell did quite well under Republican administrations. A lot of Republicans were even trying to get him to run against Bill Clinton years back. The right regarded Powell quite highly.

        Powell clearly had an axe to grind with Bush and the party because he felt he was hung out to dry when it came to the case he presented to the U.N. over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I admire Colin Powell, but I’ve been very critical of the assertions he’s made in recent years. If you’re interested in my expanded thoughts, here you go: http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/the-dark-vein-of-chris-matthews-in-some-parts-of-colin-powell/

        >>And isn’t it racist to assume that a black Bush appointee should not encounter criticism from any sector?

        That’s MY point. The color of someone’s skin shouldn’t serve as a shield against criticism. Criticism of people like Powell, Rice, and Gonzales from the left had nothing to do with racism, and conservatives never tired to say that it did.

        It’s the left that has taken the exact opposite approach, insisting that conservative criticism of President Obama is racist. Liberals can’t accept the notion that Obama has earned his criticism for what he’s done while in office. They want to attribute his skin color to everything, and like you said, that is a form of racism in itself. I wrote a piece about this topic sometime back as well: http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/racial-condescension-from-the-left/

        >>Are token blacks off limits?

        Who are you calling a “token black”? Powell?

        >>Guess what, John. It is blacks and Hispanics and other minorities who determine who is racist, not you.

        Bullcrap. That’s one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever read. Racism isn’t about numbers and specific demographics. It’s about individuals. The notion that a Hispanic or black person can’t be a racist is beyond absurd. And the idea that a white person can’t recognize racism, when he or she sees it, is a thought process of pure stupidity. The same goes for race-baiting. What about non-white conservatives and Republicans within our society? Do you view them as “token” minorities? And if you do, how are YOU not a racist?

        >>They know who their friends are and who their enemies are

        They? They? Do you really not understand what you’re saying? And why are you lumping the concepts of friends and enemies into some type of racial divide?

        >>Saying I am not a racist over and over is unconvincing. Methinks thou doth protest too much!

        Good point, Rose. As a society, each of us should just accept it when wrongful accusations of racism are thrown at us. We should just remain silent and let ourselves be vilely defined and slandered by liars and fools. That’s the spirit!

        • Rose

          You have a very prickly and quite defensive personality, John. I merely suggested that people who are not racists do not feel the need to shout it from the rooftops or take extreme measures to convince others that they are free of racial prejudices. Simmer down and don’t be paranoid. Not every comment or question is an attack on your character.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>You have a very prickly and quite defensive personality,

            Me? Do you actually bother re-reading your own posts?

            >>I merely suggested that people who are not racists do not feel the need
            to shout it from the rooftops or take extreme measures to convince
            others that they are free of racial prejudices.

            Anyone who is falsely accused of being a racist absolutely SHOULD shout from the rooftops that they’re not, just like they would if someone called them a pedophile.

            That’s the problem with people like you, Rose. You want to call someone a racist, and act like that’s no big deal. That’s a testament to how badly people like you have marginalized real racism in this country.

  • Rose

    I see plenty of wildly emotional, angry and hysterical posts from right wingers on these boards. Do you just skip them and seek for a logical phrase here and now. I suppose you consider Biblical experts who have “proof” that Obama and Biben are co-Satans to be logical. What about Nugent rants for which he has to apologize? Are these examples of logical, unemotional arguments. Was the birther movement a winning proposition for your side? Do you consider it rational? I am very interested in your definition of logic and of emotion. When do logical questions about Benghazi veer into emotional diatribes about how much Obama and Hillary betrayed the dying ambassador? When do legitimate questions about ObamaCare become emotional torrents of jealousy that he got a bill passed that you opposed? Why does your side obsess about the amount of money Michelle spends on a ball gown? Is that logic or envy or just plain stupidity?

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      >>I see plenty of wildly emotional, angry and hysterical posts from right wingers on these boards.

      I’m seeing the same from left wingers, including yourself.

      >>Do you just skip them and seek for a logical phrase here and now.

      I reply to outrageous comments from both sides, Rose… Just not to EVERY one of them. I don’t have that kind of time on my hands.

      >>I suppose you consider Biblical experts who have “proof” that Obama and Biben are co-Satans to be logical.

      Really? You ‘suppose’ that? lol. Uh. no.

      >>What about Nugent rants for which he has to apologize?

      A. I’m not a defender of Ted Nugent. B. No one has to apologize for anything. If they did, I’d like an apology from the government for drowning my children in debt. I’d like one from the president for lying to the country about Obamacare. I’d like one from Hillary Clinton about lying about Benghazi. None of that’s going to happen.

      >>Are these examples of logical, unemotional arguments.

      No. Examples would be like promoting the benefits of small government, low taxes, reduced spending, less regulation, individual freedom, a free market, a strong military, less dependency, entitlement reform, securing our border, etc. The fact that you could read my column and assume I was referring to Ted Nugent and not conservative policies is a true testament to your irrationality.

      >>Was the birther movement a winning proposition for your side?

      Not at all. Was the truther movement a winning proposition from your side?

      >>When do logical questions about Benghazi veer into emotional diatribes about how much Obama and Hillary betrayed the dying ambassador?

      When the administration refuses to answer valid questions about it, calls it a phony scandal, has yet to bring anyone in to custody over it, and will not hold anyone in our government accountable for both the lying and the incompetency surrounding it.

      >>When do legitimate questions about ObamaCare become emotional

      When people are thrown off of their existing healthcare plans by the millions, after the president told them that would not happen; when people can no longer see their old doctors, after the president told them that would not happen; when the price of Obamacare doubles from what the president promised; when people lose their jobs or lose hours at their jobs because of Obamacare; when doctors leave their practices to avoid having to deal with the bureaucracy of Obamacare.

      >>Why does your side obsess about the amount of money Michelle spends on a ball gown?

      Because our economy is crap, and it strikes them as insulting to see people in the White House flaunting their lavish lifestyles on the taxpayer’s dime. It’s the same reason your side was obsessed with George W. Bush’s golf outings and vacations while we were at war. Personally, I don’t care about this stuff, but you wanted an explanation and there it is.

      And by the way, none of this has to do with envy. It has to do with anger over the direction of the country.

  • Rose

    Speaking of personal responsibility, how can you alienate blacks, women, gays, teachers, Hispanics, other immigrants, the poor, non-Christians and still expect to win? If you don’t like certain people, how do you expect them to like you? Or trust you? Or even listen to you? The GOP cannot blame Dems for everything. Some wounds are self-inflicted.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      >>Speaking of personal responsibility,

      I didn’t write anything about personal responsibility.

      >>how can you alienate blacks, women, gays, teachers, Hispanics, other immigrants, the poor, non-Christians and still expect to win?

      Oh brother. I agree that the GOP has squandered opportunity after opportunity to appeal to the gay community, but pretty much everything else you wrote is a caricature.

      Poor people? The are more poor people under Obama than there were under Bush. And how does pursuing pro-growth policies not benefit the poor?

      Alienating teachers? No. Alienating teachers unions? Yes.

      Non-Christians? What are you even talking about?

      Tell me… What exactly has the GOP done to “alienate” racial minorities other than ineffectively fight back against constantly being called racists by the useful idiots from the left?

      Many in the Democratic Party have an unbelievably low opinion of racial minorities. They don’t think they’re smart enough to pick up a free voter ID card. They think that the color of someone’s skin is a predisposition for them requiring government assistance. Conservatives want an environment where people can succeed, and they put faith individuals to build their own success – regardless of the color of their skin.

      There’s nothing racist about that.

      What Democrats have been good at is doing exactly what you just did above: Playing the race card. Unfortunately, that works – especially when the national media is always eager to help substantiate the narrative.

      I find it fascinating that when high-ranking members of the Bush administration like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales took horrendous criticism from the left, NO ONE on he conservative side of the aisle ever claimed racism.

      But somehow, now that we have a black president who happens to be a Democrat, criticism of him is considered to be inherently racist.

      This exchange really highlights the point of my column. I could logically debate you all day long, and make a very compelling, air-tight case. But that would sadly never be as affective as generating an emotional response by just calling someone a racist.

      Democratic politicians understand the power of evoking an emotional response. That’s what I want the GOP to do, but in an honest way.

      • Rose

        Are you sure your case is so air-tight? Nugent called Obama a Chimpanzee and many on these boards gloried in it. Was that word used to evoke an emotional or a logical response? He is one of your party celebs and spokesmen. How many votes did that win or lose for your side? Are the Democrats to blame for what he said? Should the media have ignored it?

        Some Democrats criticize Obama for being too moderate, but they are not called racist. The far left does not approve of all his policies, yet they are not thought of as racist. Wonder why you and many in your party have that problem? Perhaps you should stop blaming Democrats and minorities and look around in your own back yards. You project a certain image, and it is not one of logic and reason. You are seen as anti-intellectual as well as racist.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          >>Are you sure your case is so air-tight? Nugent called Obama a Chimpanzee and many on these boards gloried in it.

          First of all, I just watched that video to see what you’re talking about. I’m no defender of Ted Nugent, but give me a break… He wasn’t calling Obama a chimpanzee.

          Secondly, if your assertion is that Ted Nugent is the spokesperson for conservatism in this country, I would like to go ahead and declare that Bill Maher is the spokesperson for liberalism. Thus, I will now put you on the spot to defend Maher’s numerous, vile, comments about Sarah Palin.

          Is that fair?

          >>How many votes did that win or lose for your side?

          None. How many votes did Bill Maher win or lose for your side.

          >>Are the Democrats to
          blame for what he said?

          No. Are the Republicans to blame for what Bill Maher has said?

          >>Should the media have ignored it?

          No. Should the media have ignored what Maher said (which they did, other than Fox News)?

          >>Some Democrats criticize Obama for being too moderate,

          I know. Talk about delusional.

          >>but they are not called racist.

          Correct, because they are democrats and there’s a media double standard.

          >>The far left does not approve of all his policies, yet they are not thought of as racist.

          I know. It’s a clear double-standard.

          >>Wonder why you and many in your party have that problem?

          Because of that double-standard. The media largely hates conservatives. They are more than willing to substantiate any negative narrative against them. On the other hand, they’re also more than willing to defend liberals against negative narratives.

          I brought this up earlier, but Joe Biden alone has made more racially derogatory comments than any other elected leader in Washington that I can think of. He, however, gets a pass from the media because he’s a liberal. End of story.

          >>Perhaps you should stop blaming Democrats and minorities and look around in your own back yards.

          What am I blaming minorities for again?

          >>You project a certain image, and it is not one of logic and reason.

          Oh, there’s an image being projected alright, but the media and the Democratic party are the ones running the projector.

          >>You are seen as anti-intellectual as well as racist.

          … by you and your liberal buddies. I get it.

  • Rose

    Ideas, not just emotion, stir people. And we are more interested in the present and the future than the past. Change is inevitable. To always, always fear and fight change is useless. I do not support late term abortions, but I do support family planning.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      >>And we are more interested in the present and the future than the past. Change is inevitable. To always, always fear and fight change is
      useless.

      Does this somehow relate to my column?

      >>I do not support late term abortions, but I do support family planning.

      What’s ‘family planning’ to you? Abortions that aren’t late term?

      • Rose

        I am very much in favor of contraception for anyone who is sexually active and unable to love, support or care for a child. One of the greatest examples of irresponsibility, in my view, is to bring children into the world when you do not want them. Unloved and unwanted children are usually abused and neglected, and they are not all the products of the poor. The fairy tale of perfect families just waiting to embrace children put up for adoption is a myth. Hundreds of thousands of children across the nation languish in foster homes where they are taken in for the paycheck. Many spend their whole lives shuttled from one foster home to another. Horror stories abound. The nightly news in every locale contains stories of abused, starved and neglected children who die at the hands of caregivers. I support free contraception to those who cannot afford it and the morning after pill as the best way to prevent and unwanted pregnancy. I support a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have a child, since she is the one to carry it and her life is just as important as any other. Most of the time the man is out of the picture anyway. It is her decision. I read that a man in Oregon carried a baby to term and it was safely born. Isn’t me dine grand? Now fellows who are gun ghost on having a baby can actually do it. About time some of you judgmental types are given the opportunity to truly save a child, not by berating a pregnant woman and sham into her into having it but by taking on that responsibility yourself! Have that egg you fertilized put into your belly, carry it for nine months, have it born and hip give it up for adoption. The technology is here, if you care enough and the tiny egg that you so often champion.

        • Rose

          Have to run errands but…modern medicine will soon make it possible for you John and other conservative men who value the life of the unborn to literally offer a young woman the solution of a lifetime. You can have her fertilized egg implanted in your body and carry it for nine months then keep it or give it up for adoption. You can make the sacrifice you so blithely ask her to make. You can bring the result of a rape into your body and your home. You can rescue a crack baby or a meth baby or a baby of any race, color or creed at the very beginning of its life in the womb. Of course, your wife or daughter can already do that and I often wonder why conservative women don’t stand outside abortion clinics and volunteer to accept a fertilized egg into their own bodies and save all those fetuses.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Rose, for all you know, I’m pro-choice. Do you have any clue whatsoever what my thoughts are on abortion are?

            As most of you left-wing loons do, you created a straw-man to argue against so you can stand on top of your little soapbox and cast self-righteous aspersions onto others.

            The amount of time you have spent arguing against viewpoints I’ve never expressed nor claimed to support is absolutely stunning.

            Again, you’re using knee-jerk, emotional hysteria, while I’m trying to debate you logically. You keep proving the point of my column over and over again.

  • Jen

    So in other words we have to dumb down the message to earn more votes?

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      More than just dumb it down. Target the message to an emotionally charged issue. Make it personal to people.

  • SemperFi1946

    Conservatives need to focus on economic issues that will make average American lives better, and not be pulled into the weeds on social issues like abortion, contraception, God, etc. Becoming the party of consistent and affordable energy by proposing switching the military, all government vehicles and the national trucking industry over to natural gas within 5 years, which we have a 200 year supply of and which would free up billion of gallons of oil for domestic car usage and make us almost independent from foreign oil outside our hemisphere and lower the cost of gasoline for consumers. Cheap energy is what helped the boom from 1945 to 1973 by lowering the cost of everything dependent upon energy from food, to consumer goods to just about everything you can think of. The GOP needs big and bold ideas like this to get people up off their couches and vote.

    • Brian Fr Langley

      Unhappily without focusing on social issues, economics issues will not make folks lives better. Western civilization is founded on two seperate types of law. Criminal law, crimes against society, and civil, or contract law, crimes against each other, that don’t rise to crimes against society. (breach of contract). In just the last few years, I’ve watched as contracts have morphed from one or (sometimes) two page documents, to pages of dozens and hundreds. Common law, (and our legal system), has long regarded contracts made between parties, as enforcable at law (even when unwritten), if, 1. there is offer, 2. acceptance, and 3. consideration. (money, or other gain) And this matters why? Because every body (it seems) is beginning to cheat, steal, and lie to everybody else. Yet a solid economy absolutely requires an innate integrity. What are you saying as a society, when you legalize immigrants who cheated, and jumped to the front of line, while millions honestly wait their turn? It pays to cheat. What are you saying, when because the economy’s bad, you let folks go on disability? It pays to cheat. What are you saying, when the State pays for raising the progeny you’ve abandoned to their mother, because she was just a one night stand. Illicit sex pays. I could belabor the point, but let’s move on. We are living in a time that eschews personal responsibility, (which is what morals really are), how then do you build a prosperity that won’t be lost to lying, cheating, or stealing? American prosperity was not founded on cheap oil. It was founded on (as the framers put it) a moral upright people. Hell even Mexico had it’s hands on cheap oil. Social issues matter. Without injecting personal responsibility (morals) back into the equation, the economy will only puff and start from time to time, but real sustained prosperity will remain illusive.

      • Rose

        Were the colonists, founders, other generations really more moral than we are? Did they never lie, cheat or steal? We’re there no slackers then? No crime? No injustice? No corruption? No religious intolerance, child abuse, infidelity?

        • Brian Fr Langley

          What’s your point? Yes there have always been folks who took advantage of others by nefarious means. As long as they remain a small percentage of the population it’s not the end of the world. But recent stats should truly horrify. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rates in the (so called) first world. 1 million children a year are being aborted by their mothers. Nearly 50% of all babies born in the U.S. this year will be born into single parent families. Of those families 70% will be doomed to live below the poverty line. Yes, there’s always been ;lying and cheating, but things go off the rails pretty fast when everybody starts doing it.

          • Rose

            You know what they say about statistics. My grandmother raised six children by herself when her husband died at an early age. She was not called a single mother. That is a new term. Many women after the Civil War and the two great World Wars were left to raise children alone. There have always been a fare number of “illegitimate” children in every society. They were just hidden or denied after long trips abroad. They were called bastards then and often shunned by society. Things are really no worse today than in earlier times. I pan fact, they are better. Problems are just more magnified. We don’t see many crucifixions, beheadings, public floggings, here. We don’t burn witches at the stake as often or allow children to labor in factories eight hours a day. Slavery is illegal and women and children are not considered property. Things are much better today, but we have a long way to go.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Yes things are much better today. Precisely because we’ve been handed a great society, by the last two (maybe three) generations. It’s the one we’re handing to our children and grandchildren, I’m worried about. What we’re doing to them by squandering the opportunities left us, is both immoral and unethical.

  • Wheels55

    Beyond that, conservatives have to create heart-felt issues when they don’t really exist. Like the war on women. That so-called war was an effective tool thought up by..tools.

  • veeper

    when you’re wrong….

    you have to run a con…..

    this is what liberals/democrats have been doing for 50 years…..

    • SemperFi1946

      Correct – they have been creating and nurturing a government dependent social underclass since the imposition of the Great Society in 1965 in return for votes. Today they have created an atmosphere where being a slacker and living off the taxpayer is ok with a great number of AMericans – that is why 49% of all Americans pay NO income taxes or get everything they pay back in refunds, credits etc. That is an unsustainable policy as no society can survive that has more people on the government payroll than those working to pay for it all!

      • Rose

        The military gets socialized medicine, subsidized housing, and many are on disability. Not all have seen battle or been wounded, yet their freebies are
        Offered to all. The GI Bill is a huge
        Government program. Service people get it even if they spent there service peeling potatoes or sitting at a desk.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          They’re government EMPLOYEES not merely dependents. They’re providing a service – an extremely important one – for our country. People sitting at home collecting a check are providing no government service. That’s the difference.

          • Rose

            Ah, the old Repub argument….some people deserve help and perks and subsidies and socialized health care and we will be the judges of who deserves what!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            A completely nonsensical reply… but I think you know that.

  • buckrodgers

    It starts with a corrupt media, take a look at immigration reform, the Democrats could of passed immigration reform or anything else for that matter when they controlled both Houses of Congress with a filibuster proof majority and a president in the white house to sign it into law, yet the media wants you to blame the Republicans, thats just one of many instances how the Democrats use the media to push their agenda, so it doesn’t doesn’t matter who the Republicans nominate the media will go after them, black, white Hispanic it doesn’t really matter, if they got a R next to their name they will be a target, so Republicans have to challenge the media, if a white journalist calls them a racist, then expose the journalist, if he lives in an all white neighborhood call him on it or demand to know why their are very few minorities at liberal media outlets and Hollywood for that matter if Bill Mahr says he wants to pay more in taxes then make sure he pays more, Republicans have to realize that the media are not their friends, they have to stay away and expose any outlet that they deem to be bias and circle the wagons just like the Democrats.

  • Bob Olden

    John, when you say Obama’s job performance numbers are on the rise, that is not a political victory, that’s a propaganda victory. It is a result of political cheating, trying to confuse the people and distract them so they won’t realize that they and their children are getting the shaft. If “political shrewdness” is twisting the facts to make yourself look good, then I hope conservatives never get it. We need to win by being able to prove that our values work, and having the ingenuity to articulate all the great ideas that stem from a conservative worldview in a way that gets the attention of the vast majority of voters. And we need candidates who know how to use all forms of media technology to make their case, and who will not compromise their integrity. We have to believe in them and we have to be able to trust them.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Hi Bob. Unfortunately a propaganda victory sometimes IS a political victory.

      I’m not suggesting that the GOP twist facts. I’m saying that they need to apply conservative principles to bite-sized, emotionally charged issues in order to get the attention of today’s disengaged electorate. I obviously want good candidates as well.

      • Bob Olden

        How much do we try to be like the other side in order to win?

        The left seems to excel at demonizing conservatives as heartless, uncompassionate protectors of big business who just want to rape the earth and bully the rest of the world with our military might. Should we be better demonizers? The left gives us plenty of ammunition.

        Why can’t we be champions of building up instead of tearing down? What’s wrong with the message that “They have lots of good intentions but their ideas don’t work. We have a better way and it has worked in the past and it will always work for the ultimate good of the people. Here are the examples…and here are the positive outcomes that have benefitted the people…here are the American heroes who have established new enterprises and created wealth for thousands, listen to what they say about why smaller government is needed…and here are the private organizations that are dedicated to helping the needy, who have better results for far less expense than similar government programs…” And so forth.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Believe me, I understand your frustration. I’m not saying that conservatives should abandon anything they stand for, or stop touting the benefits of conservative policies. I’m saying they need to add more campaigning techniques to their arsenal.

          The point is not to demonize the other side – it’s to appeal to people’s reflexive sense of right and wrong in the context of an issue.

          The pro-life movement isn’t about demonizing pro-choicers… it’s about preserving life. In this country, there’s not a consensus on abortion in

          the broad sense, but narrowing the argument to late term abortion would rally support and open the door for a wider debate on the topic.

          If the GOP wants to be back in a position to make things happen, they need to appeal to an increasingly shallow electorate, and then build on that support.

          • Pragmatist1444

            John, I agree with you in regards to the strategy used to convey the message. But regardless of MSM twisting republican ideals, comments made in the past by Todd Akin (Body rejecting rape), Huckabee (Uncle sugar – libido), Limbaugh (Sandra Fluke) cannot be interpreted in one of many ways. It’s people like these that are costing the GOP the women and the young adults’ (18-25) vote. Additionally, the GOP has constantly been against birth control for women which is in all honesty, counterproductive to the abortion topic. Neither is the GOP providing birth control and/or abortion rights, it doesn’t stand up to recognize the fact that pregnancies cannot be caused by a woman herself. How about penalties for unmarried men who cause the pregnancy (In the event that they seek an abortion). This topic does not have to be dictated by religion (Religious organizations Vs. Birth control) which the GOP often aligns itself to. It is a question of right or wrong. People, regardless of political affiliations will stand up for right as they did in the past. Any thoughts?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >> comments made
            in the past by Todd Akin (Body rejecting rape), Huckabee (Uncle sugar –
            libido), Limbaugh (Sandra Fluke) cannot be interpreted in one of many
            ways.

            While I think Huckabee was a different case (in-artful rather than derogatory), there’s no doubt that careless words by Rush Limbaugh and downright bizarre words by Todd Akin did not help the GOP. While I could point out the double-standards all day long between how the media reacts to what conservatives say and how they react to what liberals say, it doesn’t change the reality that conservatives can be their own worst enemy.

            >>Additionally, the GOP has constantly been against birth control for women

            Nonsense. That’s a caricature. It’s not a party platform, no one’s trying to ban women from using it, and no one even campaigns on it. Even super-social conservative Rick Santorum, who personally opposes contraceptives, doesn’t want contraceptives denied to people. If you want to get a true representation of how interested the GOP is in women’s contraceptives, watch ABC News’ Republican presidential primary debate prior to the 2012 election. Specifically check out when George Stephanopoulos (the man who fired the first shot on the War on Women) brought up the topic and not a single candidate had any idea what in the heck he was talking about.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Actually I disagree with you on this one. By focusing only on the public distaste for late term abortions, you’re tacitly agreeing, that stealing the future from another human being (in this way) is not unethical. This is how the left keeps winning. They get more and more outrageous, and we (conservatives) move to more middle ground. If stealing a future is not unethical at 16 weeks, what makes it unethical at 20?You’ve just given up the only true ethical argument you have. Whether at conception, or at term, stealing a human future remains stealing a human future. Once the principal ethics are surrendered, what grounds are left to fight? All that remain is current public opinion. And Hitler’s Germany used that to exterminate whole races.

          • Jeff Webb

            And as I’ve long contended, they need to fight on the dems’ turf: the gutter. If they were to fight just a little dirty it could make a real difference.

            BO got ahead using some of the most aggressive, sleazy campaign tactics imaginable. Just ask Jack Ryan.

          • therealguyfaux

            A thought I have always had is that the Repubs should liken the way Dems treat their constituencies to spousal abuse– “If they REALLY loved you, why would they treat you this way?’

            Sadly, many Dem voters, as with battered spouses, will still side with their abusers even after such an ad. But perhaps, as with battered spouses, you can persuade a few to get out– and the independent voter who has never had this idea presented to them may see the Dems in a different light and be more skeptical.

            And don’t let anyone back you down by saying that you’re making light of a serious problem– make sure the real spousal abusers are condemned in the harshest of terms, so as to blunt any War On Women criticism– “There’s many men out there today who are conducting a ‘War On Women’ and we’d like to see THAT focused on.”

            Any thoughts, John? Or is it one of these ideas that makes too much sense, so it’ll never be done?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I think it makes PERFECT sense. Great idea too for the War on Women. I hadn’t thought about that before. I think it would actually work. Nicely done.

          • therealguyfaux

            I’m not going to turn all Ayn Rand and go “pride of authorship” here– for one, I’ve heard this concept discussed by others– so if anyone wants to run with this, John– you or any poster– feel free.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            It would make an interesting column for sure. Thanks!

  • cmacrider

    If the GOP brand is in trouble as you suggest, it is because they are the authors of their own misfortune. They refuse to develop a unified simple 4 or 5 point election platform. They allow the Democrats to frame the debate. If they ever have any pointed criticisms its directed not at the Dems but at the Tea Party. They seem incapable of pointing out the obvious … that centre right politics benefits the working class whereas crony capitalism and socialism does not benefit the little guy.

    Finally the GOP establishment has to learn some humility … when you can’t beat Obama on his performance and you choose guys like McCain and Romney (both qualified guys with no ability to excite the electorate) you should not be suggesting you understand politics.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      My point exactly. Modern day Republicans, for the most part, aren’t great politicians.

      • veeper

        when you say “politicians” do you mean con men?

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Sure. ;)

  • scott autry

    I had to end my first comment abruptly…

    Though I could be wrong, I disagree with the idea that key conservative ideas don’t sell well in the public market or that going emotional is the answer to gaining more political power.

    It begins to sound like we’d be favoring the type of radicalism the Left is famous for – the type that produces riots at the multinational economic summits.

    The media works hard to portray Tea Party members as a bunch of crazy bigots. Getting all emotional over hard-fought issues is not going to win support among the great well of centrist. In my opinion, one reason more people view themselves as conservative or centrist is a distaste for the type of ugly rhetoric and actions they see coming from the Left…

    The very fact more people view themselves as right of center tends to indicate conservative ideas have fertile ground to work with. Not that they are rejecting our ideas.

    So, to me, again, the problem seems to be the lack of influence within key institutions that inform the masses: News media, entertainment, and education…

    As long as conservatives remain a somewhat inconsequential minority in those institutions, mobilizing political support to have a popular mandate for conservative policies will be an uphill battle…

    To me, the fact Liberals dominate those institutions – but still can’t win over a majority of Americans to their cause – indicates the audience for conservative ideas is out there – We just aren’t getting the message through effectively, because we are blocked in the places where the public has traditionally turned to for its information.

    The news media is a dying institution in American society. Why? Because the masses don’t trust them any more, and they don’t accept the Liberal point of view they sell. That is why talk radio (where conservatives dominate) has grown and an outlet like Fox News has thrived. The very fact Fox News has thrived at the same time people have turned against the older, established sources should tell us something… We don’t have to change our thinking. We need more means of getting that message out…

    The same is true if we examine how many Liberal pet projects in Hollywood have fizzled and died at the box office. Perhaps that is a good example to examine in relation to this post:

    The fact conservative ideas are not winning over entertainment audiences is not a sign we need to alter our policies to better match the consumers. The reason conservative ideas aren’t winning over audiences is —- those ideas are not being depicted!!

    We are largely shut out of that industry.

    The anti-war films of the Bush Jr. era bombed at the box office, but Hollywood was more than willing to make them. Conversely, whenever a product that caught conservative interest performed well, Hollywood turned a blind eye.

    Do we believe the reason there are so few Christian-oriented films coming out year after year is a sign the consumers in the market place of ideas don’t want to see them? Passion of the Christ cost a measly $30 million to make and took in over $600 million at the box office… That despite the fact Hollywood and the media attacked the film before it was in the theaters.

    In any business-oriented industry in the world, the reaction to that block buster would have been to churn out dozens of films like that. Instead, we got nothing…Despite the fact modern film technology allows them to do spectacular subjects like the Lord of the Rings and the superhero theme. The Bible is full of amazing, compelling, dramatic stories that could look visually stunning on the silver screen, but we get —- nothing.

    Polls still show a vast majority of Americans view themselves as Christians (an even more as religious).

    So, the market place for their ideas is large and profitable. We don’t have to alter our policies to better tap into it. We need to fight to get our ideas put into movies and TV shows in the first place!

    As long as the Left dominates what is made in Hollywood and what is said in higher education and the news media, conservatism will always struggle in motivating the masses to give it a mandate in the political arena…

    The fact our specific policy ideas aren’t selling well enough to change what goes on in Washington does not mean we need to change them.

    The fact is we are terribly weak within the industries that put ideas on display.

    Even worse, the Left has long dominated them and created products attacking us…

    (And still they can’t convert the masses to liberalism…)

    • sjangers

      I don’t think John is suggesting that Republicans should become more emotional, Scott. Only that they should present their message in a way that appeals more to the emotions. Republican messaging is often presented as an appeal to the intellect. Democrats tend to appeal more to the emotions. Part of the reason they’ve been successful with this approach is because people are more easily stirred by their emotions than their intellect. Only the relatively small number of voters who really take the time to understand issues are liable to be swayed by intellectual appeals, and many of them have already thought the issue through well enough to have reached the reasonable conclusion.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Precisely my point. Well stated.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      I don’t disagree that liberal domination of key institutions is a huge problem that conservatives need to address. I’ve written about that before. But that’s a long term solution. I’m talking about short term solutions to deal with today’s electorate.

  • scott autry

    “Today’s electorate acts largely on emotion because there just isn’t an appetite to research issues and use critical thinking to determine which approach makes sense.”

    I’m not so sure (and don’t see it as a primary problem). I think this might be tied to the bigger issues – the lack of influence within key social institutions: The Media, Entertainment Industry, and Academia. Those are absolutely vital institutions for getting your message out, but they are overwhelmingly dominated by Liberals. Something must be done about that…

    Perhaps this is one of the reasons there is a disconnect between the amount of people identifying themselves as conservative or right of center (or even centrist) and the messages found all over the market place of public opinion. Perhaps, at least with the people who bother to vote, it isn’t a matter of not having the attention span to focus on issues —- but their tuning out because — the messages they agree with/want to hear are hard to find.

    Look at Fox News…Look at Talk Radio…

    If you are conservative, you know Hollywood, academia, and the media ridicule your world view. Why listen?

    We need to get people inside these key instutitons to promote conservative ideas….

  • Brian Fr Langley

    While I agree with your assessment, I also don’t. Like all traditionalist conservative types, my politics are becoming, well, schizophrenic. Yes I want conservatives to win, but win what? Winning liberal lite, is no win at all. We are at a time (I think) our civilization balances upon a precipice. As I pointed out in another article, in NewYork, 87% of all black babies conceived are either being aborted by their mothers or abandoned by their fathers. (can you say social disaster) This is no anomoly. This is the result of liberal policies writ large. It is entirely fallacious, to consider this some kind of ethnic divide. This is simply the first “victim” community, (of many), to fully embrace a dependancy offered by the purveyors of “victimization”. In fact, that’s what could be fairly called (as you yourself stated) “pretty shrewd politicians”. Yeah, they’re pretty shrewd alright, first create a victim class, say blacks, hispanics, visible minorities, illegal immigrants (their children especially), women, gays, etc. (you know divide and conquer), then find a way to offer financial reparations (or other advantage), and voila, one manufactured symbiotic dependancy. You vote for me, and I’ll get you an (unearned) advantage. And don’t get me started on “public sector unions”. Your “shrewd politicians” have knowingly traded National Sovereignty for votes. Even FDR was against this. But unearned advantage, is like a sweet savor to Government unions, who now vote, only for the party offering the most gravy. You are right, the Nation is more conservative than liberal, so maybe the problem, is that as long as “RINO’S are running, many of them just stay home. Perhaps conservatives should take one idea from the liberals playbook. Don’t waffle or vacillate. Double down, and double down. Heck it works for them, why not us?

    • Darren Perkins

      what would things look like if the house and senate were full of Ted Cruz’s? Answer: rational, logical and principled. As it is now all of the democrats and a good portion of republicans operate on emotion. Never a good way to get anything done that is constructive and not destructive. I blame my generation for what is happening in this country today. We have failed our ancestors and condemned our progeny to servitude.

      • veeper

        one more word to add to your description…..

        rational, logical, principled…..and sustainable….

        communist/liberals/progressives/democrats have always used emotion over intellect.

        emotion over intellect ……Utopia……is obama’s core method….

    • sjangers

      Actually, liberals don’t double down and double down. They know where they want to go but are pretty clever in that they’ll rarely try to push the American public where they’re not yet willing to go. Gun control is generally attempted by nibbling at the edges. Abortion and birth control agendas are buried in complex legislation or slipped into situations where it can be presented as something other than what it is. Social justice and wealth redistribution are rarely attempted directly but generally under the guise of something more popular with the general public.

      Liberals will often look for situations where Republican positions are extreme, or can be falsely portrayed as extreme, so they can offer a liberal alternative that may be further than the voting public wants to go but is closer to having broad popular support than the conservative position, then the left presents it as an either-or option. Liberals have been fairly successful pushing their agenda because they wait for opportunities to lead the public just a little further than they may feel comfortable about going, but they rarely go for the whole enchilada. Even the hard ACA push was carefully timed, with Republicans in generally low repute with the public, people deeply concerned about their security and their future, and still the Dems tried to present this legislation as something less radical than it was, even claiming that it was largely Republican ideas that the GOP was only opposing now for the sake of trying to hurt President Obama.

      The Democrats know better than to pursue an in-your-face style of doubling down on the more extreme elements of their agenda. They recognize that it’s a recipe for electoral disaster.

      • kayakbob

        Yes, I would have to say that liberals, at least the ones I know, prefer the concept of incremental change. Or at least have a better sense of when to “strike hard”.

        I don’t know if they have more patience, or what. But I see exactly what you are saying in the people I know that label themselves as liberal. They would never knowingly hurt a living thing. They simply suggest more ways for people to not be self reliant. And once that “suggestion” is firmly in place, they move on to the next “suggestion” in order to cement the first suggestion.

        And on..and on.

        • sjangers

          It’s a process I’ve observed my entire adult life, Bob. They know where they want to go, but they know that if they try to drag the American people too far and too fast that they’ll lose support. So they turn up the temperature on the water a few degrees, give the frog time to get used to it, and then once that’s the new “normal” they try to turn the heat up another few degrees.

          I remember being in a debate about gun control with a liberal about twenty-five years ago. He offered a handful of reasonable changes to existing laws that didn’t infringe on the fundamental right to bear arms. Many even made sense. So I said that I could agree to support those changes if he could agree that those would be the only changes we tried to make to gun ownership laws for the next ten or fifteen years. You should have seen how huge his eyes got! Needless to say, we weren’t able to come to an understanding on the issue.