Last week I wrote about the type of candidates (I think) we should be looking for in the future, less on the glitz and pizzazz and more on the meat and potatoes. Let's dump the old blueprints and turn this new one into a production model.
As the campaigns wind down to these last two weeks, our candidates, if they are ahead...but not comfortably so, say +6-+8...are inclined to want to hold to the tried-and-true things they've been selling so far, usually a positive image of themselves, only bringing up negatives about the Democrat candidate when the facts, such as their Health Care vote, are indisputable.
And, even if these Republicans are behind, but closing the gap to within striking distance, say under ten, where Christine O'Donnell is in Delaware, or where even Rich Iott in Ohio is inching closer, the inclination is to stay to the tried and true track.
The problem with this is, how to close.
As we've seen from the debates, Angle and O'Donnell are both getting positive bumps from being able to actually look that (d)ratted, (d)espicable, (d)ishonest, D in the face. But that will only go so far in bringing undecideds around to our side down the stretch, because next day the Dems can simply deny in one of their counter-ads, and the media will do what they do best...and not allow closure once they can go back to making media punches with no chance of rebuttal. They can tell lies about you but you cannot tell the truth about them and make it stick, because no one can see them sweat, as Harry Reid did when he really couldn't explain how he became rich on a public servant's salary. (Instead he lied.)
So, how do you bring those undecideds over the last twenty yards now that you've gotten the campaign into the red zone? This is only my suggestion, but since it's a true message, "Why not?" (Warren Oates, The Wild Bunch)
Go to the public with a message that is so overwhelming they 1) can't ignore it, and 2) can't afford to be wrong about it.
If you don't recognize this approach, global warming proponents have been arguing it for years, as when someone points out that their numbers and models are conjecture or incomplete...But can we afford to be wrong?, they say.
A false argument? Actually, no, for preachers have used the same argument about God's power of judgment. "One of us is right, and one of us is wrong, but only one of us can afford to be wrong." I've used this dozens of times. It works....to the unclueless.
Truth, not style determines here, and while the Dem's will lie to deny any charge you level against a candidate, and can get away with it, a truth leveled against the horse, OK, jackass, that candidate rode in on, and a truth that is aimed at the ammunition that candidate is using, and a truth that is so severe and dangerous the voter cannot afford to ignore it...works. It works in that it makes the person pause and consider, "Can I afford to be wrong?".
I know what I'm suggesting here is a crap shoot, one role of the dice, winner take all, so many candidates and their staff will have none of it. Still...considering the stakes, and considering the TRUTH of the charge...
Go negative on the D...
...with the truth about just what the D stands for these days...(D)estruction of the Constitution, the Rule of Law and Freedom, (D)oom for the America our forefathers brought forth, and 80% of Americans (I'll wager) still hope to hold onto, and the (D)ictatorship of an elite class.
These are undeniable truths, and it's clear that a lot of Americans can't bring themselves to believe it because they can't connect the dots between a simple fact, such as a candidate's support for the Health Care bill, and what that bill really portends about personal liberty.
My advice, don't tell the public you're against the bill they voted for...OK, do...but first tell them that the Health Care Bill was the most hateful and illegal theft of personal freedom in the history of the United States. It should be repealed. Not fixed. Tell them it was unconstitutional on at least ten counts. Show them a list. Then, tell them WHY your sneaky, (D)amned (D)eplorable, (D)umb (D)emocrat opponent voted for it. Stupidity or simpatico? Finally, tell them what your opponent will have to do once back in Congress, namely he/she will have to expand it to other rights and privileges of citizens. It cannot stop there, for socialism cannot ever stop until it has gobbled everything up. (Heads up to Iott in Toledo, this will work against Kaptur.)
OK, Socialism isn't such a dirty word anymore, a lot of youth especially lapping it up like they did Ho Chi Minh in another day, without much thought as to where the logic of embracing it actually takes them, as my generation later found out with the boat people and Pol Pot. So you have to connect the dots for them. They like to think socialism equals Sweden, where people can vo-dee-oo-do in trees (I Am Curious Yellow), work, maybe, not work, maybe, live well anyway, never knowing that 50 years later the Swedes don't much like Swedish socialism. In fact, they can't afford it...too many who chose "not work" while state employees stole the treasury blind...but alas, also can't figure out how to get out from under it. Naked blondes in hot tubs, hell, how about a little personal freedom? Sorry, that's been reserved for the state class.
No one in America stops to think there is always a hidden dark side to socialism, and end game, which is only now showing its ugly head in Europe...violent communism, terrorism and anarchy (our media doesn't report this) as the legs are slowly being chopped out from under the gentler socialism (the useful idiots) all dreamed of creating there. This dark side, this get-even side of socialism has always been here in America, and is already abroad in the land; men and women, who like Bolsheviks in 1917 believed in order to win, everything had to be torn down and rebuilt over the rubble.
Imagine that, in fact picture it; a new nation, built on the ashes of Freedom, conceived in tyranny, and dedicated to the principle that all men are created serfs...but that a few have been pre-ordained to rise above them as masters. Hitler, Lenin, Mao, you choose.
Sound harsh? Within the Democrat Party, elected and consular, there are many who believe precisely that. They don't just want power. They want revenge. They have a hole in their soul (Doc Holliday, Tombstone).
In all likelihood, most Democrats don't feel quite this way, but they give the notion succor. (Look it up, great word), and when asked, as they have proved time and time again, will vote to sustain it. It's a kind of quid pro quo they can't say "no" to. They have to vote for socialism even if they don't like it. We've seen this over and over with Democrats.
If you told most Democrats they were socialist, they would spit in your eye. Most actually don't even believe it...so yes, they are that stupid. Still, pick out the major tenets of socialism, and they will agree...only singly. Most believe in a ruling elite, and that they should be it. They just don't know that the Constitution prohibits it, or don't care. They believe that the majority of American people are simple-minded buffoons who don't give them near enough credit (or applause) for their intellectual and political status and should be rendered to tasks befitting drones...even though the Constitution specifically identifies those drones as the collective rulers of the republic. I can go on. There is almost nothing about the Constitution and Bill of Rights with which they agree, except one or two items...sort of like the NRA.
Most Democrats are not whole-hog socialists, maybe just one point here or another there of a broader socialist scheme...global warming, unions, education...yet, just like the AARP, will sign any deal with the devil in order to achieve that special niche they believe they should occupy. E.g, One-term Tom Periello, VA-05, is a one-worlder, and believes in ceding most of our sovereignty power over to the UN. He's even founded NGO's to that effect. Still, he claims to be a constitutionalist. True Marxist? Marxist-symp? Pays me no never mind. It's the D in front of his name, not his pet theory that defines him. If it waddles like a Marxist, quacks like a Marxist...and VOTES like a Marxist, it's a Democrat.
All Democrats, simply by hanging that D next to their names are buying into the whole socialist theology, (D)estroy the Constitution, (D)estroy Liberty, (D)estroy the free markets, (D)estroy the Rule of Law...(D)estroy the private American House...because, just like the NRA, in order to get what they want, they have to allow the other one-theme socialists to have what they want as well.
I don't know what your district is, but just as in (D)elaware, I'd be wanting to know how many subscribe to this marxist-notion...and how many think there can afford to be wrong.
With a card-carrying Marxist like Chris Coons, how can Christine O'Donnell not go after the pedigree of the jackass he's riding? Lay it right at the feet of the people of Delaware, just like JFK did in 1960, if you can't vote for a Roman Catholic, it's time to stand up and be proud of it. Make Delawarians proud of preferring socialists...and be willing to take the consequences for it.
It's clear, just lay out the dark side of the "D", then say "I Won't Let them do it." The choice can't get any more clear. If we win, we win. If we lose, everyone who voted for the "D" will have to walk the plank with Coons....because on November 2 it doesn't end. It starts.
With variations what I've said can work in every campaign. You Tweeters know what to do. If you're a candidate, we have some very good writers here at RS who can make your case for you defending on your Dem opponent's particular bent. Just let us know.