Posted on 08/29/2010 9:24:21 PM PDT by Lorianne
You're not going to want to hear this.
Nonetheless, you have to.
If you want to win - indeed, if you want to make any sort of serious inroad into the American Political Process, you need to read this, you need to listen, and you need to adopt this path.
If you do not, you will be marginalized into irrelevance, no matter what else you do.
Here it is:
You must discard - intentionally - all "wedge issues" as points of debate, discussion, or campaigning. You know what these issues are - they fall broadly into the category of religion in one form or another.
These are issues such as abortion and gay rights (in all it's forms, including marriage debates), but is by no means limited to these two. In short, if there's a religious basis for your position, you must not campaign on it, and indeed you must pointedly refuse to discuss it.
The Tea Party began as a protest over bailouts and handouts - that is, theft and corruption within our markets, government and economy. This is a winning position with 90% of the American Body Politic.
Any candidate who runs on these issues - and these issues alone, promising to stop it and lock up the scammers - all of them - wins.
As soon as you bring the other issues that everyone wants to talk about into this, you will lose.
Here's why.
These are called "wedge issues" for a reason.
What you personally believe is irrelevant to the political process. These issues are used by the two main political parties to get the electorate to divide on a 50/50 basis - thus leaving them having to persuade exactly one person of their position on some other issue to win.
You cannot win such a contest. At best you can force one of the other parties - the one that most agrees with you - to lose. The reason is simple - you will split that half of the electorate, which means the other party - the one that disagrees with your position on those issues - wins the election.
Drill this into your head folks:
If you allow these issues to become part of your campaign, you will not only lose you will cause the party that most-agrees with you to lose.
I know this is going to be unpopular, but it needs to be said. I've seen this happening in some of the local Tea Party groups, and it saddens me. The local Niceville branch here featured people talking about "natural law" as an important qualifying factor for political candidacy, as just one of many examples. There were times I felt like I had walked into a Baptist sermon.
The Tea Party and other political expressions like it are, of course, free to run on whatever platform they'd like, and to back candidates based on whatever they'd like. But if you're going to do this, then you'd be wise to try to take over the Republican Party instead of being "independent" or any other sort of "outside" influence, because it is the only way you can win with this approach.
The Tea Party infiltrating The Republican establishment is a long shot. Witness John McCain, who made a campaign spectacle out of bailing out the banks. How's JD Hayworth doing in challenging him? He lost, right? How'd that happen? The same way it always happens: Hayworth let the campaign's terms include those wedge issues, and then got tattoed by the guy with the bigger warchest and the ability to threaten people politically.
You either change the terms of the debate and the issues upon which the election is decided or you lose.
It's that simple.
(excerpted)
Bears repeating:
.
“A man who cannot or will not defend our unalienable rights — ALL of them — does not deserve our support and should NOT be elected.”
.
One more try: If you continue trolling FR with this RINO surrenderism, you’ll get the zot. FR is NOT a liberal debating society.
You don’t have to leave your principles behind.
That is not what is being proposed.
> “I wish I could believe that just being right and passionate about these issues is enough to change things. I’ve really tried to believe that but just can’t get there.” <
.
Then there could be somewhere else that you can’t get to:
Mat 10:33
“But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”
The tea party is doing fine without RINOS or their advice. In fact, that’s what this is all about. The RINOs are afraid they’re going to lose their hold on the Republican party. To which I say, hallelujah!! It’s about time!!
It’s a hostile takeover!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
Let there be rebellion!
.
If you fail to proclaim your principles, you have left them behind.
.
Look at what our attempts to be “successful” has got us!
I’d rather not be a cheese eating surrender monkey. How about you?
I’m not against God or family. I’m against one person’s narrowly defined version of God and family, and the imposition of it across the board.
One of the reasons so many English subjects got on those boats to cross an ocean almost 400 years ago was so they could worship as they chose. The founders of this country purposely left specifics out of the Constitution with respect to religion.
I see daily attacks on Mormons because they worship differently. I see daily attacks on Catholics because they worship differently. I see attacks on Methodists, Unitarians, Lutherans, Baptists, Protestants, Pentecostals.
And that’s just Christians. We’ve still got Jews, Hindi, Buddhists, Shinto...
I can guarantee you that all of these people want the same thing. They want to live their lives free of government interference, regulation, and mandates. They want to keep most of their money and apportion it where they see fit. They don’t all look like you, and they don’t all believe like you.
I know that to get freedom, I have to give it. Do you?
I don’t think you do.
I know that to get freedom, I have to give it. Do you?
From the bottom of my heart, thank you for this post.
I want people who respect the Constitution, let me worship as I please, let me keep what I earn, and let me make my own decisions. I'm tired of being treated like a damn child - by everyone.
“I’m not against God or family. I’m against one person’s narrowly defined version of God and family”
.
What if that “one person” happens to be Jesus Christ?
.
If we can’t defend the so-called “wedge issues” like we’re supposed to, then there’s no point in fighting on. That’s the point the author is making.
You cannot win by not fighting for what you believe, even if you have to step on a few toes to get there.
Glenn Beck explains why he doesn’t focus on topics like gay marriage and abortion
_________________________________________________
If Beck is not speaking out against them, then hes not just a poor excuse for a conservative...
He’s a liberal...
Theres no sitting on the fence in conservatism...
Ya either is or ya isnt...
Tennessee Nana
August 30, 2010
Abandoning social issues to focus on fiscal issues or national security issues is like lopping off an arm with a hacksaw.
Your examples seems kind of far fetched to me.
Just because a person stands for conservative social values doesn’t mean they are going to turn the US into some kind of middle age-like theocracy. My particular viewpoint doesn’t suggest we have to fill Congress with extreme right-wing evangelicals - as if that were even possible. I am talking about MORAL people who are not afraid to stand up for right, and who base their belief system on something more substantial and lasting than the latest populist fad or agenda.
Voting social conservative only means when this person speaks and votes, social conservative values will have representation. If they pick Supreme Court justices, their picks also embrace social conservative values.
No man, even an atheist, governs and votes “in a moral vacuum”. I personally believe those who say they have no relgion still have the world view of “humanism”, and their governance is based on what they believe is best for society, which is changeable. If a person cannot accept a concept of a moral absolute or an objective truth or standard, then how can this same person accept the Constitution? Current POTUS is a pretty good example of this fact. HE is what you get when you take God out of the equation and it scares me to death!
This is why I say if things are going to truly turn around, you cannot separate out the moral fiber that makes a person. Or even hide it. I do not want people governing who make decisions on a whim but on a standard. Nor should we ask a man to not to be true to himself just to run for office.
If it is a marketing ploy only, it will only go so far. The leftists will out the conservative values of a person and put it on the table for all to see. Yes you can keep going back to your key platform - but they will not. And they have the upperhand with the media and will keep making it about your conservatism and not about your financial issues.
Better to get it all out in the open. Say, “Look, this is who I am, what I believe, you can flap around all you want but this will not change. But I hope you can get past my personal beliefs and see what I can and will do to get this great country back on track.”
You pre-empt them at every turn. YOU make it an issue before they do. YOU address it before they do and make it clear where you stand. It will leave them scrambling.
Anyway, that’s just my .02 for what its’ worth. 5 years ago I would have totally agreed with Lorraine, but seeing the direction the moderates are taking us, it is time to turn this ship around - with a hard RIGHT.
He doesn’t avoid the culture war issues, too many people in this country avoid looking toward God. We’re slowly becoming a Godless nation, that it’s made gay marriage for example “acceptable practice” in society. Our problem is that too many in this country have turned a blind eye toward God, accepted moral depravity as the norm.
No it's not, it's about being Taxed Enough Already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.