Who Should Spread the Republican Message?

I had the opportunity to read Jessica’s post from last week about why she’s not voting for the entire Republican ticket in November. She has now cross-posted it here on Peach Pundit. While she makes some valid points, I think she misses others that are also relevant as we head towards the November elections.

Her top issue appears to be that while she hears reasons to vote against the Democrats, she doesn’t see many reasons to vote for the GOP. How valid is that argument, especially as it relates to specific candidates on the ticket this year?

First, let’s take a step back and consider who is likely to be voting in November. In most cases, he or she is not going to be someone like me, Jessica, or for that matter, 98% of the people who read Peach Pundit or faithfully attend their county party breakfasts each month. Sometimes, it’s going to be someone more like this guy. Or the person who, after getting home following an hour-long commute and then taking care of the kids, might have time for a little TV or possibly a glance through her Facebook feed before retiring for the evening.

This person doesn’t have a lot of time for politics. He knows that there’s an election in November. He hasn’t decided who to vote for, but generally leans Republican. He’s one of the two thirds of registered voters who doesn’t think America is going in the right direction. He’s one of the 90% of Republicans or 54% of independents who disapprove of President Obama.

So, what is a candidate to do, knowing his or her only job is to get more votes than the opposition? This year especially, it might make sense to liken the opponent to the President, or the Democratic party.

In the Senate primary, the winning candidate wasn’t the one with the six point plan to renew America. It was the one who said, “If we want different results from Washington, we need to send a different kind of person to Washington.”

Who does that leave to talk about limited government, lower taxes and economic freedom? Who should “Paint me a beautiful picture flowing with Liberty?”

The candidates will touch on it in their stump speeches, however most voters won’t be in attendance to hear their rhetoric. They will lay out specific proposals, for those who care to look.

Ultimately, though, much of the responsibility for spreading the Republican message to potential voters lies with the people I mentioned earlier in this post. The county party members. The Young Republicans and the College Republicans. They are the ones who know their friends and neighbors, and who can engage them one on one.

My friend Jessica can do that, too. She certainly knows the issues. And, I’ve heard she has a pretty big Liberty Drum.

50 comments

  1. John Konop says:

    Jon,

    The demographics are changing…..the polls are showing it…..most of us are debating timing and degree of change not the change….This should be a historic blow out election for the GOP. We have lame duck unpopular president, economy so-so, huge unrest in the world……yet the Dems are hanging in….time for a mirror check for the GOP in my opinion. We cannot be the anti chamber, anti immigrant, anti birth control, anti gay…….party, and think this will play well in the long term. Personal liberty means you support consenting adults the rights to do what they want as long as they do not harm others in the privacy of their home. The party needs to focus being for people of all races and religion, and against affirmative action. The party needs to be for promoting birth control use especially among poor people and young adults who can least afford kids. The party needs to work with the chamber not vilify it. I could go on and on….I am sure you get the point.

    • “The party needs to work with the chamber not vilify it.”

      I guess Cobb is leading the way then. Our Republican majority (4/5) commission seems to fall all over themselves to do anything and everything they can to make the Chamber leadership happy. The Chamber says jump, Chairman Lee asks “How high?” :-/

      • John Vestal says:

        On one hill, you ever the increasingly-marginalized (to everyone but them) uber-right “old guard and a few young McCarthyites” faction that is holding their collective breaths and insisting it’s the hill they’re gong to die on.

        On the other “future-of-the-party” hill, you have everyone else……waving back at the first hill, smiling, but muttering under their collective breaths, “Ok, but could you get it over with already? We have stuff to accomplish and you’re kinda holding us back.”

        And when they eventually realize that’s exactly what’s going to happen, they’ll lament that the rest aren’t even willing to wait and profer them a proper burial.

        As the great American, Josey Wales, once opined, “Buzzards gotta eat…same as worms.

  2. BuddyFreeze says:

    As far as Jessica’s piece is concerned, I’m a casual political observer and it seems most of the time spent on these campaigns and what they are known for is all the negative attacks and defining the other person. Which is probably a necessity if you want to win. If you dare play the nice guy you are toast and if you have a positive forward campaign it’s not remembered.

  3. BuddyFreeze says:

    and as far as the constant drumbeat of moving the GOP to the left..those drumbeats are hit hardest by those on the Marxist left who would love the GOP to embrace the principles of Dem light.

    • EAVCandor says:

      uh, what? there are probably less than 5 marxist thinkers elected to high office in this country. Even our left-leaning party is FAR to the right of the liberal posts in other developed nations.

  4. Jon Lester says:

    Regardless of who carries the message, Republicans should decide on just what it is. Are you for big business types who want to bilk consumers even more (and who are little different from progressives who think they can do it with taxes and fees), or are you for small business and improved opportunity? Are you for intervening everywhere in the world, or are you for sensible foreign policy? Are you hung up on gay marriage, or do you want to move forward? Will you keep writing bad abortion legislation, or will you finally agree that someone other than the state can better influence the culture?

      • Baker says:

        I agree with both Jon & Harry here. Nice.

        Trouble is Jon the folks who are generally for small business are the same that are hung up on two dudes getting hitched.

        And as for Harry, I agree with you but sh%@ if those Dems don’t hang together and win some elections (which is why all the Barrows/ Landrieus/ Pryors of the world are just lying liars).

  5. MidtownKitty says:

    Nathan Deal is a snooze
    Sonny Perdue, had some life and character.
    Governors, senators set a tone for statewide politics and races.
    We’re stuck with Deal for four more years. This state really needs a gov with some life, zing, zip.
    After November David Perdue needs to step up with some energy and visibility, the dude at least needs to be interesting

  6. ArtfulDodger says:

    Republicans needs to put details behind calls for less government, lower taxes and economic freedom. It’s easy to say the words but difficult to actually find where we can reduce government when it by definition in the Constitution the governments roles is commonly and legally understood to be to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and that requires among other things spending on enforcing regulations designed to protect our health, safety and welfare not reducing them as some call for. To pay for that role there is little to no place to reduce taxes as the so called entitlements are sacrosanct unless we make them limited to need and/or we cut defense spending because other countries need to start picking up their fair share of the costs for policing the world. The government does not deny economic freedom. Dealing in reality will go a long way in selling the Republican brand.

    • Harry says:

      It’s easy to reduce the budget. Congress simply cuts every branch, activity, and entitlement by 10% next year, another 10% the following year, etc…until the deficit is eliminated and a realistic schedule is in place to pay off the debt. Of course Krugman would be unhappy, but so what.

        • Harry says:

          Social security and Medicare supposed to be funded by an insurance program, not an entitlement. I anxiously await your response.

          • saltycracker says:

            We wish……as both are so eat up with mismanagement, bureaucracy and fraud about the only way out is soundly regulated privatizing, at some age cutoff move SS to 401K types even if all in treasuries and move medicare to exchanges (see my post under open Thursday) with an individual mandate and govt paid premiums.

            • Harry says:

              Unfortunately the social security disability program is a train wreck, full of abuse and mismanagement. It needs reform in order to be self-sustaining, but is not likely to happen under the current administration.

      • EAVCandor says:

        I’d love to hear your thoughts on:

        A) what you think “entitlement” means in this context.
        B) How you would deal with skyrocketing unemployment, infant mortality rates, crime, etc.
        C) Why you think the budget should magically be balanced by a global superpower with impeachable lending/debt credibility.
        D) Your inevitable tax cut plan that magically increases revenue.
        E) What it’s like to have been high on paint thinner for 30 straight years.

        • Harry says:

          All the above! Seriously, I know it’s really hard to wean you folks off the government tit, but what we’re dealing with here is unsustainable.

          • saltycracker says:

            From the right farside – millions of Americans were in corporate or personal plans when medicare came along in 1965 or even thinking SS wouldn’t pay as it does. The govt took over with guarantees and companies/responsible folks adjusted their long range financial planning accordingly. Companies had defined programs and continued pressure to sweeten them had execs that screwed the company for their bonuses and employee peace by putting the costs off for future execs to deal. When the light bulb went off they began moving to fully funded 401k’s and could even sweetened then as they could afford. The side result was mobility of retirement programs meant more employee and employer opportunities and greater productivity.

            Public agencies with an “endless” stream of taxation capabilities and no concern for the long range viability doubled down on this madness and continue to grow the liability with both pensions and medical coverage beginning way before medicare/SS kicks in.

            There is nothing on the board to correct this without greater debt, substantial tax increases or default. Example: Detroit – incredible mismanagement – six figure blue collar early retirements – sell the art, sell the courthouse, pay the promises.
            The tough side is promises made must be promises kept.

  7. caroline says:

    The problem with the whole “liberty” argument is that it’s empty. The GOP says i’m for liberty but I’m also for a consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So the message is I’m for liberty just not for gay people. The GOP says I’m for liberty and then puts up roadblocks to minorities voting. So the message is I’m for liberty just not for minorities. And on and on this message goes. It boils down to we’re for liberty but only people that we deem “worthy” and that usually is just old white guys that we deem “worthy” of “liberty.”

    • Harry says:

      I sincerely doubt you’re really for liberty. Anyone who supports government spending at the current levels is not for liberty. Anyone who supports extending government benefits to gay couples who add nothing to the future but just suck up money better spent to sustain the future, is not for liberty. Anyone who would kill the life of an innocent child in support of some false notion of gender equality, is not for liberty. The most basic liberty is the right to life.

      • caroline says:

        Okay. Your post with all due respect shows why the GOP keeps losing national elections. If you cant address the issues without invective and moving the goal posts then just pass by what I said and ignore it.

        And please, nobody believes the GOP cares one whit about spending.

          • EAVCandor says:

            Geez. You should read more. Not Breitbart, but like political theory, economics, history. This isn’t a game, this is how we organize society and economy and your ideas and thoughts are baseless.

            Go look up the beginnings of libertarianism and its history. Are you remotely aware that most thinkers who pushed this ideology forward were coming from labor unions? Do you have any remote clue as to what sort of coercive state your beliefs would actually birth?

            I can deal with liberals, radicals, conservatives, reformers, etc, etc, etc,. who I believe to be wrong if they can demonstrably convey a sense of intellect and reasoning, but the things you believe are so based in execrable fear and hate instead of study and thought that you’re really not worth it, guy.

            But yeah, keep saying liberals are stupid and trumpeting some meaningless November election wins for ‘your’ party just because you’ve reduced the very essence of how we interact and coexist with one another to some stupid contest.

              • EAVCandor says:

                Please enlighten me as to what I wrote which you disagree with. I’m just telling the guy to do some research instead of spouting his partisan nonsense

                • EAVCandor says:

                  Will admit though, I was being a touch reactive. Just tired of hearing politico/Fox/whatever regurgitated into my ears at every turn these days.

          • caroline says:

            Do you really think November is going ot make any difference even if the GOP takes the senate? You can put a hash mark for a win on your side of the black board but it’s really going to be more of the same. Instead of bills dying in the senate they’re either going to get voted down in the senate or they are going to be vetoed by Obama. There are not going to be enough votes to override any vetoes.

            • Harry says:

              A GOP senate would serve to moderate Obama. Any court nominees he puts up would have to be less radical, for example.

              • georgiahack says:

                Sure, go ahead and hold all the judicial nominees for Obama. Then come 2016 and the Senate goes back Dem with a Dem President and they get to fill ALL the judgeships. Maybe with Obama you get to have some influence and get a more moderate or even conservative judge if you can strike a deal. With a Dem President and Senate you will get what we give ya.

  8. Three Jack says:

    ‘Who should spread the Republican message?’

    First there has to be a message. Currently it would appear the GOP message is ‘Obama sux and if you vote dem you suck too’.

    Jessica expresses well the feelings of many formerly devoted GOPers. This is a growing group as the GOP continues to offer nothing as a reason to vote for them.

    Many of us remember the election of 20 years ago when the GOP offered a real agenda in the form of the Contract with America. They won a landslide that year because of the agenda that was presented in contrast to the president’s lackluster performance to date. Here we are 20 years later with another unpopular president overseeing an ever increasing federal budget and multi billion dollar deficits forecasted for several years. Same opportunity as in ’94, but the GOP lacks vision or a visionary leader to take advantage thus voters like Jessica and many others have no reason to be excited about the GOP.

Comments are closed.