OK, Here I go again. I posted in response to Senator Stockman walking out on the SOTU speech and got into another tirade.
1st is my posting, then a reply by Eduardo and then my reply to him.
Eduardo Brown: This should have been done at least, at the very latest, one year ago, I would say two. Now is not the time for this. We need to cut the losses, huddle, come up with a good game plan to take 2014. Then we will have two years to figure out how to take 2016; breathing room. It's getting way too complicated. We need to focus and keep our eyes on the prize. We need to stay away from calling him a Muslim and stop talking about his "wedding" ring, etc. and focus on how to win. I said a little while ago I have no idea what the strategy would be, but I write this in hopes I hit someone with a far more intellectual brain than mine and come up with a solution instead of re-identifying issues.
Eduardo, I am so glad that we finally have some people in the House that have the cajones to finally bring Impeachment Charges against Obama. It maybe 5 years too late in coming, but it is 3 years ahead of their timetable!
As for the 2014 & 2016 elections. We must keep laser focused on 2014 and not allow the Left, MSM and RINO's distract us with 2016 predictions and other B.S.!
Our strategy is to focus on key races, such as SC & Az. If we dump Lindsey Graham & John McCain and other "Establishment Republicans, such as Mitch McConnell, it will send shock waves throughout the nation. It will prove to those, who continually badmouth the conservatives and TEA Party activists, that we can't be stopped and WE ARE MAIN STREAM AMERICA!
We need to find a way to repackage our message so we can communicate to the public and sway their opinions in the manner and ease that the Left employs. They cater to the targets heart, not head.
When we speak, we target the mind with logic and facts. They see us as dry ancient papers and see the the Left's message as a cool drink of water. We need to change the message delivery!
When we speak to opposing the minimum wage, we can't spout facts and figures. We must draw the picture of how the listener's job is at risk, their finances will be thrown into turmoil and expense will rise with the rise of all goods and services. We must make the message personal so the listener walks away, and says "Wow, this could happen to me tomorrow., This is scary! Maybe these conservatives/TEA Party people are speaking the truth."
Our messaging is our weakness and we have to learn to rephrase the debate and take it to the Left and beat them down with it!
Take the marriage issue. Here is how the argument should go & I use this method all of the time.
I oppose the Federal and State government defining marriage in any shape or form. The reason is simple, marriage is a religious rite, where as all local, state & federal agencies recognize and license civil unions, when they mandate we apply for a "license". So, now imagine, a same sex couple go into a Muslim Mosque and demand a marriage ceremony, what do you think would happen, if it was say in Iran or Afghanistan? I don't think either person in that couple would walk out alive.
Marriage is a religious rite.
Picture the same couple walking into the Vatican, demanding the Pope perform the ceremony? The Papal Guard would be escorting them out at the end of their pikes! Marriage is a religious rite.
In each instance, before that couple walks into the Mosque or Vatican, they had to go to a government official and take out a government license to allow the ceremony to be performed and it is a civil union document.
So, now your daughter wants to marry her girlfriend and you support their decision. What will you do? They want a church wedding. Where do you go? To the Catholic Church? To the Mosque? No you'll go to a denomination who will respect their life choice, after they get their civil union license from government.
Do you understand what I am saying? Religions don't all recognize the same definition of marriage, because it is part of their doctrine as to how they define marriage. So why is government trying to redefine a religious rite, when the Constitution restricts government from prohibiting the free expression of religion? Why is government telling my Church, we must recognize same sex marriage when my pastor and our congregation practice our faith to say otherwise? Isn't that the same as saying government is now in charge of religion? Isn't that also unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment?
What is it that you are strongly adverse to? Chocolate? Screaming babies? Drivers on cell phones? What if suddenly government tells you, you have no choice, tough noggies, you have to eat chocolate, hold screaming babies on your lap for as long as they say you must and ride with dumb drivers talking and texting on their phones, because it is now their right, despite the fact the laws and our Constitution says otherwise! It is their "Life Stye Choice" and now a "Right" so declared by an activist judicial ruling.
To say it in a short sweet way, OK, we'll accept same sex marriage, if you allow us to smoke in front of you anywhere we choose. It's a life style choice! BTW, If you hate smoking so much, why are you for legalizing smoking pot, while criminalizing smoking legal cigerettes? Explain that if you can!
Message, Message, Message!!!