Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » How Republicans Can Win: Some Thoughts

How Republicans Can Win: Some Thoughts

Via Powerlineblog comes this excerpt from David Horowitz’s pamphlet “Go For the Heart: How Republicans Can Win”, which gives some good advice to those who would advance the protection of life, liberty, and property because out of the two parties only the Republican Party right now contains a sizable portion of people that are fighting for these values. From the pamphlet:

…After voters re-elected an administration that added five trillion dollars to the nation’s debt, left 23 million Americans unemployed, surrendered Iraq to America’s enemy Iran, and enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to gain control of the largest country in the Middle East, the one lesson Republicans should agree on is that elections are driven by emotions, not reason. Moreover, when it comes to mobilizing emotions, Democrats beat Republicans hands down.

Worse, Republicans appear unable to learn from their losses. Year after year, Democrats accuse Republicans of the same imaginary crimes – waging wars on women, not caring about minorities, and inflicting pain on working Americans to benefit the wealthy. And year after year, Republicans have no effective responses to neutralize these attacks. Or to take the battle to the enemy’s camp….

…“Caring” is not one among many issues in an election. It is the central one. Since most policy issues are complicated, voters want to know above everything else just whom they can trust to sort out the complexities and represent them. Before voters cast their ballots for policies or values they want a candidate or party that cares about them.

How crucial is this concern? In the 2012 election, 70% of Asian Americans cast their ballots for Obama, even though Asians share Republican values, are family oriented, entrepreneurial, and traditional. Asian Americans voted for Obama because they were persuaded that he cared for minorities – for them, and Romney didn’t…

…(Republicans) avoid finger pointing – naming an adversary and holding him accountable. Elections are adversarial. They are about defeating opponents.

Elections are necessarily about “us” and “them.” Democrats are as adept at framing “them,” as Republicans are not. Democrats know how to incite envy and resentment, distrust and fear, and to direct these volatile emotions towards their Republican opponents. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy complaining about the style of the Democrats’ argument….

…An exit poll conducted by CNN asked, “What is the most important candidate quality to your vote?” Among the four choices were, “Strong Leader,” “Shares Your Values,” “Has A Vision for the Future,” and “Cares about People.” Romney won the first three by more than 54%. But he lost “Cares About People” by 81-18%. That says it all….

…(Republicans) are defensive, and they are whiny, and also complicated. Of course elections are divisive – that is their nature. One side gets to win and the other side loses. But even more troublesome is the fact that responses like (those that the Republicans give) require additional information and lengthy explanations to make sense. Appeals to reason are buried in the raucous noise that is electoral politics. Sorting out the truth would be a daunting task, even if voters were left alone to make up their minds…

The pamphlet goes on to discuss more lessons from the last election and ways that Republicans can win them- if they want to. I agree with a lot of these sentiments. After the first Presidential debate in which Romney stormed back into the race, I wrote after that “Governor Romney was successful in this debate into making this election into a decision on whether or not to continue Obama’s policies or change them” and “Romney appeared to be in the debate and attacking his policies and theories of government”, which resulted in a big win for Romney. But in the third debate, which sealed his eventual loss, I wrote after that “I don’t think Romney did what he needed to do in this debate to win the election- Obama was aggressive, critical, petty, and had a lot of good lines- and won the debate” and “Romney asked a question about Pakistan, answered the question with a lot of solid policies and well-thought out ideas- but no attacks on Obama though.” After the first debate I thought Romney had a chance to win it- after the last debate I wrote that he missed the chance- and the reason why is that he didn’t understand how to win elections.

Next election, I think we need to seriously think about nominating a winner for office- someone who has battled to win tough and bitter and rough primary and general elections for a range of offices. Someone who doesn’t pull punches, who rips his opponent when given an opening, and who realizes that this isn’t all just fun and games but is really important stuff. I don’t care about the prestige of the office, or caring about who is offended or pissed off- I want someone who cares passionately about not destroying our nation’s prosperity, future, liberty, freedoms, and life through bad policies. The policies are bad- and the people who advance them need to know this and aggressively and soundly know it.

So a rough campaigner next time who wins elections, instead of a solid and sensible choice who successful manages operations. Scott Walker? Chris Christie? Marco Rubio? Ted Cruz? Bobby Jindhal? All of these people need to show me over the next four years that they can fight- and win.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

How Republicans Can Win: Some Thoughts


Written by

I believe that future generations should have the same opportunities that myself, and those that came before me, had. My parents taught me that I could do anything I wanted to do. I don’t want to have to tell my daughter, “You can do whatever the government tells you to do.” We are at a crossroads in this country; are we going to be free, or are we going to be slaves to the nanny state. I choose freedom. I can be found at the Conservative Hideout, or at the Conservative Hideout RapidFire

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , ,

opinions powered by
  • Steve Dennis February 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM

    Chris Christie is already out in my opinion and I will not be voting for him. As for the others I agree, I will be watching them over the next four years hoping that one of them emerges as a solid candidate to go against Hillary.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Racist Democrats attack Marco Rubio for drinking waterMy Profile

  • Jim at Asylum Watch February 14, 2013 at 7:38 AM

    The electoral map gets worse for conservatives by the day.
    Jim at Asylum Watch recently posted..“One Man/One Vote” Does Not Mean All Votes Are EqualMy Profile

  • John Galt February 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    The post makes a lot of good and sensible points that could be acted upon, if . . . . we had a different system of electing our final candidates for office – specially the president.

    Under the present system of protracted and partisan state primaries, and the even more ridiculous caucuses, a Republican candidate that would appeal to the majority of Americans (those millions that didn’t participate in the primaries) cannot come out alive. All that can possibly come out of this system is a candidate that can appeal to the party activists.

    The primary system is the largest obstacle to producing appealing (winning) candidates.
    John Galt recently posted..The Federal Bubble Making Machine is in Overdrive – Part II, New FHA Housing BubbleMy Profile

  • Teresa Rice February 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM

    We need a fighter who truly believes in conservative values, not a fake it til you make it person like Romney was. He played too nice when the Dems threw the gloves off and got real dirty. By being afraid to offend Romney lost the election. I definitely will be watching Rubio or Cruz over the next few years.
    Teresa Rice recently posted..Lent BeginsMy Profile

  • Bunkerville February 15, 2013 at 8:42 AM

    We keep hoping for a white knight.

  • Fuzzy February 15, 2013 at 4:05 PM

    Well, apart from the fact that Obama didn’t win so much as Romney lost (fewer Republicans voted for him than for freaking McCain. Pause and digest that a bit), I definitely agree that we need someone aggressive on the next presidential ticket. But that can’t be the sole criterion because we much more badly need a candidate who is truly, unrepentantly conservative (this rules out Christie, for instance). Someone who can articulate the conservative message. Scott Walker? Maybe. Ted Cruz? Jury is out, he’s brand new, too new probably for a presidential bit as soon as 2016. Rubio? Nope, not for me, not ever. He’s fudged campaign spending/credit cards and is already trying to silence conservatives who disagree with him on amnesty (he’s a progressive. I’d bet anything on it.). Bobby Jindal, him, I like. We’ll see. It’s early days, but I already know that I will never support either a Christie or a Rubio run. They are just like Obama. Just. Like. Him.
    Fuzzy recently posted..Social Security, MediCare, and Minimum WageMy Profile

  • CI February 16, 2013 at 6:30 PM

    I’m not impressed when Horowitz leads with “surrendering Iraq to Iran”. we did that by invading Iraq in the first place.

    He makes some decent points, but I don’t see the GOP as anything more than the other end of the teeter-totter, until they as a party, own the issue of civil liberties.
    CI recently posted..Games People PlayMy Profile

  • […]  How Republicans Can Win- Some Thoughts BdKS: “I wish I could say that I won the lottery or was on a tropical island vacation, but […]