Kathleen Parker is part of the reason Republicans are in disarray.
Kathleen Parker has an essay in National Review that basically says religion needs to find a way to make its arguments without using God. The fact that a person can write such an essay is the essence of why the party is consuming itself. Notice I did not say "losing," because the Republican Party is quitting the fight instead of fighting the principled fight.
The Democrats are getting votes with a message that resonates – "Freedom From Fear Through Government." People are voting for this and not against Republicans. The Left starts, funds and the media accelerate an endless stream of social fights to drive Republicans from the stage, because they know we can beat their mirage if we just stand up. The social battles now cause Republicans to fight amongst ourselves which has exposed the lack of leadership we know see. And at the root of the problem is the National Review, an organization sucking up oxygen while the Democrats get more votes. This Conservative Movement could have delivered a McCain/Palin victory because it was there to be had.
When Sarah Palin was asked about her experience, if she had answered "I have a set of principles that work whenever they are tried and principles trump experience every time," she could have blown her critics away.
ConservativeMovement.com recognized this problem and has launched a campaign to turn things around. We define Conservatism so people know what it is and why it is. We publish a set of principles so people can actually debate with the Left. This completely eliminates the personal attacks and hate labels the left uses to drive us from the stage. We define sin as a faith based concept, not a conservative concept nor a government concept. We substitute Humanity for Religion because there is no doctrine of "separation of Humanity and State" so we cannot be driven from the stage. The National Review says "What would Reagan do?" and then completely misses what he would do. President Reagan was a MAN OF PRINCIPLE! In addition, their Reagan campaign discounts every one who comes after him.
Republicans have to understand that Freedom requires a moral society to succeed and the Left is driving religion from the stage as the method of driving morality from the stage so they can lie, cheat and steal the government. The founders wrote in the First Amendment "Congress shall pass no law interfering with the free exercise of religion" for this very reason and we need to defend the First Amendment as strongly as the Second or our Freedom will be just as lost. And it is being lost because morality has been driven from far too many in the Republican Party.
A true leader answers the call of the people to "please lead so we may follow." Faux leaders ask the people "please follow, so I may lead." Focus groups are not the answer to leadership, governing effectively is the answer and Republicans are supposed to know this.
I do appreciate that Sarah Palin has the principles we, as conservatives, live by and cherish. But why are you advocating that she should have been our vice president? Wouldn’t we have been wiser to work harder on behalf of Mike Huckabee to have been our presidential nominee, so that we would have been proud of our president’s full set of credentials and assured of significant accomplishments during his tenure?
Settling for Sarah merely because of principles would have hurt us in the long run as she, more than likely, would have been an underachiever as vice president, whereas Huckabee would have been one of our most outstanding presidents. I think we need to ask ourselves how to get our most principled and talented conservative politicians into high national offices so we can grow and sustain our movement. With Sarah, there is the chance that we would have been sorry.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I didn’t like the Huckster because he made a lot of silly mistakes and he came off as a Jimmy Swagart type. He even called the leader of Russia, Victor Putin once. Sarah? I wasn’t too crazy about her either. Of course I would have voted for either one of them over Obama, but that’s not the point. Who ever runs next time will needs to convince the swing voters that conservative principles are mainstream. The term “Right Wing Evangelicals” must be redefined as something that sounds more like Judaeo/Christians. Those people that have been brought up with a Bible in their homes and consider themselves children of Abraham. I think this includes Muslims. We must also appeal to the families and those who grew up without fathers, but would like the next generation to be defined as a husband, wife, and children all working for a better life.
The Democrats were allowed to bash GWB with impunity and that is what got OHB elected.
Everytime I see “We must convince swing voters…” I have to double up on my Lisinopril and triple my Plendil! Talk about repeat-loops!
If the “swing voter” were more than a few %, McAmnesty would be the PEOTUS, not Barry Miscarry.
Look at the Battleground poll. Look at it, and look at (I believe it is) question #13.
Since it was incepted, that question was carefully crafted to get an honest & knowledgible response. And the percentage answer changes slightly from time to time, but the slf-described “Undecided & Swing Voter” percentage is never more that 15%. Never. Meanwhile, self-described Conservative voters hover around 67%. Faihfully around 67%.
So maybe instead of worrying about “crafting a message to win over the swing voter”, we should concentrate on teaching Consitutional underpinnings, the Thoughts of our Founding Fathers, and then ejecting from the Republican Party those who love collectivism… Like Kathy, there, who’s mooning over that posterboy of Socialism, Obama.