« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Speak Plainly And Stay On Message

The new path for Conservatives

By: plumely (Diary)  |  March 12th, 2013 at 04:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“Yes we can!” still echoes in my ears. And the aftertaste of the “Naked Lunch” that was the 08 election is burning the rooftop of my mouth.

2012 was even worse. My scalp is still raw from all the hair I pulled out of my head. So, what what went wrong? What didn’t we do? We had minorities on parade at our lovefest of a convention. We had Dirty Harry do theater of the mind. That should have appealed to our more artsy members. Our canidate had Bill Blass teeth and perfect hair who lovingly assured the public that it was ok to make mistakes and you have permission to vote correctly the next time.  But yet Obama beat him with both hands tied behind his back. So, what’s the answer?  Lots of people throw up their hands and say the majority of the people just want free stuff. Sorry, I don’t believe that.

Rugged individualism is still out there, as well as the American spirit. Deep down people know what is right. They know that hard work is rewarded. So, the question is how do we get our message across? The answer is plain speech.

A. The Economy: The harder you work the more you should be paid and the more you get to keep.  Government needs to step off.

B.The Constutution: We follow the Ten Commandments and we should do the same with the Constitution. It’s not a prose poem for royal smart people to attach to their own interpretations. It says what it says and means what it means. No ifs, ands or buts.

C. National Security. We will thump anyone who messes with us or is a buddy with those who mess with us. GW Bush in his heyday had it right when he espoused” Either you are with us or against us.” And we will defend our civil liberties as ferociously as we defend our homeland. Without one or the other, neither will exist.

D. Social Issues: We’ll cheer for morality and virtue. But at the end of the day it’s for the individual states to decide issues pertaining to gay marriage abortion etc. You as a citizen can decide where you fall on the spectrum of social issues and live in the appropriate state.

F. Immigration: Hey immigrants your here. Congratulations on making the tough journey! Please become a citizen in the perscribed amount of time or else. And this will be the first and last time you get to break our laws. Time to pay up by participating in the business of maintaining this great nation or get out and we will throw you out.

Green Energy: We want the energy that is cheap and saves you the citizen alot of green and makes the provider alot of green as well. Drilling anyone?

Well, that is what I mean by plain speech. And that is what  Conservatism means to me. And again plain speech and stay on message.

 

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Viet71

    plumely,

    I believe in bluntness in personal and professional discourse.

    In politics, to be elected, one must have a good ear. A good ear to hear what is being asked. A good mind to say what should be said. Just that simple.

    • plumely

      I believe that too. And I believe we as voters need to be loud and specific as to what we want our canidates to do for us. We can’t just demand that they be Conservative. We need to state what that means to us by requiring they do specific things. Then we need to hold their feet to the fire and make sure they do what we hired them to do. If not, we throw the bums out. Viet, thank you for the comment.

  • Kyle-MI

    I think we do campaign with one hand tied behind our backs. We do a decent job of explaining our positions, but we do not connect with the half of the population that decides based on empathy. For example, we are doing a good job of emphasizing the Second Amendment, but we are not showcasing individuals who have actually used guns to defend themselves (and there are thousands of people who have). Meanwhile, gun opponents bring out parents and loved ones of those killed by guns.

    I am not saying we should abandon logic and fact, but we need to supplement them with stories and examples.

    • plumely

      I agree. Anecdotal evidence is in short supply on our side. And when we try to employ it, we botch it up. As for the 2nd Ammendment. It is very effective to point out the hypocrisy of the left on that issue. Hollywood is an excellent example.

      • sudomakeme

        Taking the 2nd Amendment as an example again, the stories are out there. People who have saved their lives and the lives of others simply by having a gun, actually fired or not. Teenagers/children who have been taught how to correctly use a gun and when it is appropriate, and have saved lives by doing so. Why aren’t the people who have the fortunate position to be heard (not just politicians but any famous people) bringing these stories out? Best you can currently hope for is some conservative site putting the story up but that is preaching to the choir.

        • plumely

          We need to do more of putiing these things up on social media. And we need to cite these examples in our conversations with our Liberal friends which we all have.

  • 1stRichard

    Stay On Message, that seems hard to do with so many contradicting talking points on this side of the fence. There is also the problem of playing in the leftist sandbox and recognizing we have our own message.

    Where did we go wrong this last election, one of many pivotal moments was when Romney responded to a heckler, yes “corporations are people.” The correct response should have been not to play in this leftist sandbox defending corporations. Romney should have known this was about the partial overruling of the McCain-Feingold Act, the Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Romney should have stayed on message with the Supreme Court stating its ruling had to be broad, because a narrow decision would chill political speech. There should be no doubt the social media on the left took full advantage of every mistake Romney made.

    Rugged individualism, please do not play in that sandbox on the left. The American Revolution gave birth to the greatest nation in the world of Individual Opportunity, the Individualism on our side of the fence that eliminated classes. Colonists promptly developed the exceptional personality and characteristic of our foundation, an innate propensity of self worth coupled with the desire of innovation and motivation, the individualism on this side of the fence. Rugged individualism is a ridicule of the individualism on this side of the fence, to create classes of people and distract from our message. This new uniquely United States government depended on a small central government for protection from other nations but protected our Individual Opportunity, this being the ladder of success and most importantly protected our Individual Conscience. This is a big one to mess up, individualism in summation, the left wants class warfare and on this side of the fence we need individualism, Individual Opportunity to eliminate division.

    Stay On Message, first we need to agree on our own message, don’t play in the leftist sandbox as it is a trap and everyone needs to be on the same page.

    • plumely

      Didn’t know rugged individualism is a lefty term. Learn something new everyday. THis diary is about what I believe the message should be. I believe it needs to be as simple and as clear as possible. I tried to make it such. If I failed i will keep trying.

    • plumely

      A little late on this one I understand. But thinking about what Romney’s response should have been, other than “corporations are people too” should have been, Corporations are made up of American people. And they are owned by people or founded by people who dreamed and aspired higher than to just depnding on crumbs from the government table. My opponent wants to kill that spirit and he will stop at nothing to do it, even if it means thwarting the Constitution. His view of what America should be has no place in a free society. Instead, we got Obama’s a nice guy but a weak manager and just a little over his head. We can do a better job at managing the bureaocracy and bring the cost of doing business down and within our budget, *Yawn* if I say so myself.

      • 1stRichard

        The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. Manifesto of the Communist Party – Marx/Engels In other words, this is not the sandbox you want to be caught in trying to pick a fight in, the class struggles of corporations and people. This is where the left wants to draw you in, on their turf, they have the high ground and this is where they are strongest. If you want to argue bourgeois and proletarians, you should know this is not about corporations are people but class struggles. The corporations are people line is only a ridicule to play you as a fool, or as some call it – a useful idiot. Alinsky Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Romney self identified with corporations, the bad guy, bourgeois oppressor against the proletarians, class struggles and ignited the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large.

        If you want to pick a fight in this arena on the left you first need to realize you are in enemy territory, you need to know what and whom you are fighting, and you need to be really good at it. The other way out of this mess is as you suggested, Speak Plainly and Stay on Message, but you need to use our own message on this side of the fence and stay on this side of the fence.

  • sudomakeme

    It’s not just “stay on message and keep it simple”. (Granted those are problems but not the biggest ones.)

    The left wins on “it’s not fair”. “Fair” is their dog whistle, and it works.

    We need something basic and something that transcends facts that reaches the very depth of our being just like “it’s not fair” does.

    • plumely

      We have struck a nerve with Civil Liberties. We can make the case for fairness using civil liberties. I agree with you on reaching the depth of our being. Again I will be a broken record, the civil liberties it appeals to both sides and you can also do a great job of pointing out those who want to take them away. It puts Lib canidates on the defense.

      • sudomakeme

        Yes. But we’re not clear or brief. We must cater to the lowest common denominator to get our message through. Can you show me anything any conservative has said in 3 words or less that hits home to everyone as well as the simple heartfelt “it’s not fair!” we’ve all uttered at some point in our lives?

        • plumely

          we are in agreement on the point about not being clear or brief. I think Cruz or Paul could be clear and brief.