That's not true. Hell, if all it took was 30 second soundbites, conservatives wouldn't be in our current disastrous position. But we are in deep trouble despite spending millions on soundbites.
Here's the deal: that 30 second liberal soundbite has traction because it simply summarizes a point made far more broadly over months or years -- it does nothing more or less than tell people what they already "know" from other sources.
Obama didn't win the election because of his soundbites -- he won because the foundations for his victory had already been under construction in the media (broadly defined) for years. His team played it brilliantly, taking advantage of the cultural framework built by the likes of Jon Stewart, whose message was essentially "conservatives are funny, and deserve to be made fun of." And despite the dismissiveness of many FReepers, Stewart's send-ups of conservatives are often hilarious, because they're based on accurate (albeit highly skewed) depictions of conservative talking points.
Obama's an empty suit with no record, of course -- but that simply aided his team's approach: with no clear record on anything, a sharp eye could spot the "cultural holes" that Obama's image could be moulded to fill. Obama's soundbites were just taking advantage of spots where the "cultural framework" was not being effectively addressed.
That's the liberals' real strategy: to control the cultural landscape. Once they've done that, they pretty much get to pick their battles on ground of their own choosing. We conservatives are at an intrinsic disadvantage. Obama found a chink in their armor, but I think it serves mostly to expose their strategy, rather than to weaken it.
There's more, though. We conservatives love our theories -- but we seem to have forgotten that real politics is played among real people, rather than just among academicians. Regardless of what it eventually ended up being, W's "compassionate conservatism" was essentially correct in its diagnosis -- that we tend to ignore the "people" side of politics.
Let's take a look at your Medicare discussion, because it highlights the point. You say that, despite your arguments, your friend kept returning to the "emotional side of the issue." She probably did -- but I think you've forgotten the most important part of the political equation (it's something I tend to do, anyway).
The fact is that many seniors do have a great deal of difficulty dealing with their medical expenses. I'm sure you gave her all sorts of fine and correct conservative economic arguments ... but how do they help the old lady down the street who really is trying to find some way to pay for her prescriptions?
I think I'm like most people, in that I tend to be more favorably disposed toward the person who offers to help me solve my current problem; than I am toward the person who offers theories that don't do anything to help me deal with what's ailing me at the moment.
Liberals understand that dynamic; conservatives seem driven to work against it -- which merely strengthens the liberals' hand.
“but how do they help the old lady down the street who really is trying to find some way to pay for her prescriptions?”
Well you just made my point. The Medicare Drug issue like the universal health care issue was lost long before the bill was written. The left started with the grandma eating dog food stories back in the 90’s. It became a throw away comment on many TV shows, dramas and comedies. Oprah and her ilk made sure that at least a couple of times a year they had a sob story on to humanize the issue. By the time it came to vote it was no longer a question of whether it was a good idea to offer the program, or whether there was better ways to address the issue than another huge expensive government handout, but rather how big a program we were going to be saddled with and who was going to be taxed to pay for it.
By your argument every liberal agenda item makes sense and should be passed. We can always find someone who is hurting that a government program could help. Lord they included $90M in the stimulus program to provide one-on-one education to people having trouble dealing with the digital TV change, because after all everyone deserves to have good TV reception. I am sure my friend is elated that Obama won. She will soon see all her liberal concerned addressed at the expense of the “evil” rich.
“I think I’m like most people, in that I tend to be more favorably disposed toward the person who offers to help me solve my current problem”
Well then you should be very comfortable with OBama and Nancy because as long as you are not “wealthy” they are going to help you solve all your problems, of course at someone else’s expense. Oops there I go again with another one of those nasty little conservative theories, personal responsibility.