Monday, November 10, 2008

Ooo! Soundbites! Yum!

If you went to church yesterday, your pastor/minister/priest most likely delivered a sermon in 3 easy points. Some pastors go as far as 6! (Thankfully, the one pastor I have in mind does it very effectively.) Why do they do that? Did they all get together in a ministerial chatroom and decide they wouldn't try to outdo each other? Is it collective laziness on the part of the clergy?

Nope. The answer is that experience and research has shown that our society, as intelligent or unintelligent as it may be, will follow only a few major points in a speech or lesson. Even those all-day seminars are boiled down to chunks of time that convey a few major points at a sitting.

In this past election, the Obama campaign made full use of this knowledge, boiling their message into what eventually became the mantra of "Hope and Change". When asked for specifics, "Obamans" could recite the mantra and that was enough - for them. Conservatives must be able to communicate their message in equally simple language without being as simpleminded.

For ages, the Republican party has stated that it stands for limited government, strong defense, individual rights for the born and unborn, low taxes, etc. That message has been blurred by the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). I tried to list other groups who might be responsible, but RINOs seem to encompass the lot of them.

How can the Conservative message be boiled down to just 3 main points, and what are those points? I offer:

1. Limited government realizes the value, rights, and liberties of the individual. Under this point falls the theme of being prolife, pro-Constitution, pro 2nd Amendment, etc. Government officials must lose the right to vote themselves pay increases.

2. A strong defense at home and abroad. Under this point falls the theme of strong borders and the idea that peace is won through strength, both demonstrated and implied. We as the United States have been blessed with the resources to protect and defend ourselves and other nations, whether or not it's politically expedient to do so. With that blessing comes responsibility. Enforcing legal immigration does not preclude immigration; it will help keep criminals from settling here, committing the same crimes they committed in their home country, and then escaping back across the border.

3. Lower taxes means lower prices and more saving/spending power for individuals. Under this point falls the fact that corporations don't pay taxes: consumers do. Lowering the taxes on business will lower the prices for individuals. Jobs will be created. Lowering the taxes on individuals will increase spending/saving. This has historically been shown to actually increase the amount of tax revenue coming into the goverment coffers.

There are more issues that could be listed, and maybe a point number 4 could be added, but the argument is this: Create a message that is easily communicated and defended/demonstrated.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Being bipartisan means you get stinky cheese with your whine.

When I took Dr. Mossholder's Executive Management course in the MBA program, I had already been warned about the in-class negotiating exercise the good doctor conducted every quarter. For the exercise, the class was divided in half. Each side represented one half of the earth's nations. Each side was given a certain number of long-range nuclear weapons. Each side was instructed to make a decision and then come to the negotiating table to tell the other side what that decision was and negotiate some way to live in peace.

The problem was that the husband of one member on the opposing side had taken the course and let her in on the secret to winning. When we arrived at the negotiating table for our exercise, armed with our great, glorious plan to compromise and live in harmony, we learned that our opponents had launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike and had already wiped out all means of our side being able to defend itself. We got an F that day.

Did they cheat? Only if learning from the past can be considered cheating!

The Republican party has much history to study when it comes to bipartisan politics. There may be examples in that history where something good was accomplished, but I believe those examples are few and very far between. When you mix something you know is Right with something you know is Wrong, you knowingly strengthen the Wrong and weaken the Right.

Let's briefly consider the liberals' core list of beliefs. They believe in a woman's right to kill her unborn child at various points in the gestation period, right up to the point of birth. They believe the goverment should be BIG and POWERFUL enough to squelch conservative speech, limit or do away with the right to own and bear arms, and increase taxes to fund goverment spending and entitlement programs. They do not believe that individuals can govern or provide for themselves: goverment must do that for them.

Conservatives believe in small government, pro-life and pro-business policies, low taxes, personal liberty, strong defense, the abilities of individuals to govern and provide for themselves, and that you win peace through strength.

We, as thinking human beings, can look at this elementary - and admittedly simplified - comparison between two belief systems and realize that one will have a positive impact on individuals and one will have a negative impact.

How can conservative legislation, when based on conservative beliefs, ever be bettered through bipartisanship? The result is that conservative legislation, and eventually the conservative message, becomes diluted and weakened. You can't mix Right with Wrong and expect Right to maintain its integrity

Senator McCain touted his skills at bipartisanship during this presidential campaign as if it were a positive, a trophy to wave above his head. In essence, what he was confessing to us was that he has developed an ability to compromise in negotiating at the expense of weakening the conservative message. In contrast, Senator McCain complained that President-Elect Obama had never "reached across the aisle" in an act of bipartisanship. What McCain thought was a sword with which to attack his opponent was nothing more than a scepter of coronation, dubbing Obama as someone who doesn't compromise the message, wrong as it may be. Senator McCain got an F on November 4, 2008.

In rebuilding the conservative party - whether or not it's called Republican - the new definition of bipartisan politics must be those instances when the left/moderates agree with Us. Anything else will compromise and dilute what is right and true.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Senator McCain. Take 5 minutes from your rest and defend Sarah Palin!

Now that the 2008 Presdential elections are over, everyone's taking a well deserved chance to catch their collective breath - with the exception of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R). She's busy responding to attacks that are now being fueled by none other than John McCain's own campaign staff. Where is Senator McCain?

These attacks amount to nothing more than a campaign staff that ran a lame campaign and are now attempting to throw SaraCuda under the bus.

The "leak" has refused to identify him/herself. (Secret info: it's Nicolle Wallace) Typical. So why hasn't the gentleman from Arizona taken a few minutes to step in front of a camera to defend SaraCuda?

Senator McCain, during the campaign you stood up and defended Barack Obama after the North Carolina Republicans ran a truthful ad against him. You did that within 2 minutes of the ad running. Yet it has been TWO DAYS since this garbage started and you remain silent.

Shame on you, sir.