"Honest discussions - even and perhaps especially on topics about which we disagree - can help us resist hypocrisy and arrogance. They can also help us live up to the basic ideals, such as liberty and justice for all, on which our country was founded." -David E. Price
"The world is full of fools and faint hearts; and yet everyone has courage enough to bear the misfortunes, and wisdom enough to manage the affairs, of his neighbor." -Benjamin Franklin
I can hardly be labeled "Liberal" in my steadfast defense of the clearly Constitutional Right to Life, the First Amendment Right to Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly, the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, Tenth Amendment States' Rights, etc. But, as Dr. Seuss writes in Oh, the Places You'll Go!, "[w]ith your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet, you're too smart to go down any not-so-good street."
The base of any political party may generally accept with little question the perspective placed upon any event in a particular era. But the Independent Voter--that individual who will cast that marginal majority vote that catapults one candidate over another in a particular local, state, or federal election--will not soon forget the shifting opinions from one year to the next, from one administration to the next, from one decade to the next.
Is it right in one era to caricature and curse one American President, and to condemn those who do likewise to an American President of the opposite party in another era? Why don't we all rise above it regardless of the President's party and move on to SUBSTANTIVE bi-partisan conservative Constitutional SOLUTIONS.
When one group engages in mass demonstration and speeches condemning government abuse and decrying the usurpation of power (immigration reform; healthcare; deficits & taxation), this self-proclaimed mob is called patriotic, a Tea Party; when another group engages in mass demonstration and speeches condemning government inaction (immigration reform; healthcare; deficits & taxation) and decrying their lack of opportunity, this second group is labeled unpatriotic, unAmerican.
When the federal government, through legislation or enabling regulation, sets standards, protocols and reporting requirements for private sector entities (i.e. oil companies), that federal government action is labeled as interfering with the free markets or overstepping states' rights to regulate the business climate of its own state. When the federal government complies with regulations that direct the private entity (i.e. oil companies) to pay for and remedy its own fatal environmental disaster, that same federal government is accused of not doing enough to engage itself directly in the private entity's affairs.
Can that same state government Chief Executive who publicly rejected federal stimulus dollars destined for infrastructure improvement projects and working class financial stability justify now requesting that federal dollars and manpower be directed to correct a private corporation's infrastructure failure that imperils Gulf Coast working class financial stability?
In this 24/7/365 media circus that our elected officials operate in, one can understand the political pressure that they are under to communicate decisions that appear to effectively address the concerns of the moment, the crisis, or the era. But, I caution incumbents of both parties that this is a year where Independent Voter memories are long, discernment is deep, and inconsistency is fatal career-wise.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Will a thorough review of your public record (votes, statements, positions, alliances, contributors, appearances) reveal solution-oriented consistency...or will it betray self-interested hypocrisy to the inquisitive Independent Voter.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
LEADERSHIP TRUMPS LONGEVITY
"In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a lesser or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for the benefit of one class, a ruling class, instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole." -Theodore Roosevelt
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” -Frederick Douglass
Nothing cries out for Change and Leadership like the defeat of incumbents. Lame ducks all: Utah Senator Bob Bennett, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and West Virginia Congressman Alan Mollohan. Their bipartisan outbound migration will be joined by many more local, state, and national figures between now and January 2011.
As I've noted to my clients for some time, the collective electoral will of the Independent American voter prizes Principles over party affiliation, favors Faith and Family Values over favoritism, and loves Life for All more than lazy government-sanctioned preferences. The Constitution is a non-partisan living document drafted and ratified by a diverse body of farmers, business leaders, and lawyers --statesman all-- who early recognized the tendency for one ruling class to displace less powerful interests of the common citizen. The Constitution remains safeguarded by their descendants --you and I--- today and every day.
Our nation and its citizens have always fared best when elected officials embraced the will of those who elected them and honored the sacred entrustment placed upon them to carry out the limited role of government in town/city halls, state houses, and the nation's capital. This is NOT a Political Party's nation, but it IS the People's nation! The individual who blindly calls all of one Party saints and all of the opposing Party sinners lazily casts aside the insight to discern the individual Leader's strengths and weaknesses. History is replete with principled, Faithful, family-committed, prolife leaders of all Party affiliations, so we must not devolve into petty soundbite statements purporting to label all one way and all the other way.
2010 has already begun to demonstrate that Americans love America and its Freedom, love their God, love their Families and Life, love their Neighbors, and value Economic Opportunity MORE than they are willing to defer to the failed leadership of the past. The forced migration of incumbency has begun.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Does your candidacy demonstrate Leadership experience supported by a foundation of Faith, Family, Life, Liberty, and Economic Opportunity that the Independent Voter will reward with that sacred trust of electoral victory?
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” -Frederick Douglass
Nothing cries out for Change and Leadership like the defeat of incumbents. Lame ducks all: Utah Senator Bob Bennett, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and West Virginia Congressman Alan Mollohan. Their bipartisan outbound migration will be joined by many more local, state, and national figures between now and January 2011.
As I've noted to my clients for some time, the collective electoral will of the Independent American voter prizes Principles over party affiliation, favors Faith and Family Values over favoritism, and loves Life for All more than lazy government-sanctioned preferences. The Constitution is a non-partisan living document drafted and ratified by a diverse body of farmers, business leaders, and lawyers --statesman all-- who early recognized the tendency for one ruling class to displace less powerful interests of the common citizen. The Constitution remains safeguarded by their descendants --you and I--- today and every day.
Our nation and its citizens have always fared best when elected officials embraced the will of those who elected them and honored the sacred entrustment placed upon them to carry out the limited role of government in town/city halls, state houses, and the nation's capital. This is NOT a Political Party's nation, but it IS the People's nation! The individual who blindly calls all of one Party saints and all of the opposing Party sinners lazily casts aside the insight to discern the individual Leader's strengths and weaknesses. History is replete with principled, Faithful, family-committed, prolife leaders of all Party affiliations, so we must not devolve into petty soundbite statements purporting to label all one way and all the other way.
2010 has already begun to demonstrate that Americans love America and its Freedom, love their God, love their Families and Life, love their Neighbors, and value Economic Opportunity MORE than they are willing to defer to the failed leadership of the past. The forced migration of incumbency has begun.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Does your candidacy demonstrate Leadership experience supported by a foundation of Faith, Family, Life, Liberty, and Economic Opportunity that the Independent Voter will reward with that sacred trust of electoral victory?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
FIRST STRIKE: ANTICIPATE, ADVANCE AND ACT
"To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will." -Ronald Reagan
"What you always do before you make a decision is consult. The best public policy is made when you are listening to people who are going to be impacted. Then, once policy is determined, you call on them to help you sell it." -Elizabeth Dole
I'm not a big fan of the filibuster, regardless of which polictical party is employing it. The filibuster is the adult equivalent of the sore loser taking his baseball and bat and going home because he wasn't allowed to bat cleanup. One Party cannot rail against the use of the filibuster by its opposing Party, and then within a few years trot it out every time bipartisan negotiations fail to produce the perfect compromise. Independent voters recognize hypocrisy.
I said it before and I'll say it again: The current legislative and administrative policy agenda isn't a hidden secret. The bills traveling through Committee and the regulations being put forth by the Administration were broadcast long before the present, hearkening back to campaign promises and candidate platforms well before November 2008.
Some of those themes resonated well enough with voters, including critical Independent voters, that incumbents fell and power shifted. Within some of these ideas there has been much common ground, even if final votes have not always reflected the bipartisan undercurrent incorporated via amendments.
I believe that a Party loses its way when it fails to (1) anticipate the pending agenda; (2) develop and advance well-researched and superior policy initiatives; and (3) act to publicize, negotiate, and incorporate those competing and superior policy initiatives into final legislation. A Party, especially one holding the minority legislative caucus, cannot only occasionally anticipate and participate in the nation's legislative agenda.
As legislation begins to bubble up in Committee, the Minority Party must marshal its resources and send forth its throng of legislative aides to poll real Americans, research rational alternatives, and draft comprehensive competitive legislative solutions--and then publish them and broadcast them to the widest possible audience so that Independent voters can weigh legitimate alternative policy initiatives that may extend beyond the mainstream media soundbites.
Informed voters, Independent voters, and disaffected citizens don't like whiners, wimps or stall tactics. Put away the crutch of the filibuster and bring forth well-researched, well-written, well-publicized policy alternatives well in advance of final Congressional action and Reconciliation Procedures. Anticipate--don't equivocate!
TODAY'S QUESTION: As a candidate in the ever-important 2010 election cycle, what are YOU doing to ensure that you're ahead of YOUR opponent's policy agenda?
"What you always do before you make a decision is consult. The best public policy is made when you are listening to people who are going to be impacted. Then, once policy is determined, you call on them to help you sell it." -Elizabeth Dole
I'm not a big fan of the filibuster, regardless of which polictical party is employing it. The filibuster is the adult equivalent of the sore loser taking his baseball and bat and going home because he wasn't allowed to bat cleanup. One Party cannot rail against the use of the filibuster by its opposing Party, and then within a few years trot it out every time bipartisan negotiations fail to produce the perfect compromise. Independent voters recognize hypocrisy.
I said it before and I'll say it again: The current legislative and administrative policy agenda isn't a hidden secret. The bills traveling through Committee and the regulations being put forth by the Administration were broadcast long before the present, hearkening back to campaign promises and candidate platforms well before November 2008.
Some of those themes resonated well enough with voters, including critical Independent voters, that incumbents fell and power shifted. Within some of these ideas there has been much common ground, even if final votes have not always reflected the bipartisan undercurrent incorporated via amendments.
I believe that a Party loses its way when it fails to (1) anticipate the pending agenda; (2) develop and advance well-researched and superior policy initiatives; and (3) act to publicize, negotiate, and incorporate those competing and superior policy initiatives into final legislation. A Party, especially one holding the minority legislative caucus, cannot only occasionally anticipate and participate in the nation's legislative agenda.
As legislation begins to bubble up in Committee, the Minority Party must marshal its resources and send forth its throng of legislative aides to poll real Americans, research rational alternatives, and draft comprehensive competitive legislative solutions--and then publish them and broadcast them to the widest possible audience so that Independent voters can weigh legitimate alternative policy initiatives that may extend beyond the mainstream media soundbites.
Informed voters, Independent voters, and disaffected citizens don't like whiners, wimps or stall tactics. Put away the crutch of the filibuster and bring forth well-researched, well-written, well-publicized policy alternatives well in advance of final Congressional action and Reconciliation Procedures. Anticipate--don't equivocate!
TODAY'S QUESTION: As a candidate in the ever-important 2010 election cycle, what are YOU doing to ensure that you're ahead of YOUR opponent's policy agenda?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
GREAT COMMUNICATOR...OR YESTERDAY'S GOAT?
"Take advantage of every opportunity to practice your communication skills so that when important occasions arise, you will have the gift, the style, the sharpness, the clarity, and the emotions to affect other people." -Jim Rohn
The short track skating events in the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics provided physical proof of the importance of anticipating a future opportunity before the start of the race. The difference between the gold medal and wiping out along the boards was often the critical timing and quality of the planned inside/outside pass of the unwary opponent.
Building upon our previous installment, we will begin addressing how you may best capitalize upon (4) Issues of anticipated future importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position. While we will address the other three topics of issues formation in coming installments, I believe we must first look to communicating the policy item(s) that will provide fuel for your long-term electoral victory and solidify your legacy. Put aside partisan rancor for a moment, and simply recognize prior patterns of success, because YOUR winning message MUST attract and embrace more than just your base to achieve 51% in November. If all YOU can address is YOUR base, join yesterday's goats.
Long before the November 1980 Presidential Election, Ronald Reagan had accurately identified several issues that would eventually boil over in the minds of Americans. Reagan did not hesitate to develop responses and solutions to those issues [among them (a) the malaise of international communism; (b) the hunger for patriotism; (c) the burden of excessive taxation; and (d) the breakdown of the family]. Not only did Ronald Reagan approach these--and other--topics with genuine optimism, compassion and practical solutions, but he faced an opponent ill-prepared to even enter the dialogue, as evidenced in the sharp contrast of televised debates and other public appearances. President Carter yielded the lead of incumbency for a lack of anticipating, preparing for, and developing superior solutions to the issues that would define the 1980s.
Again in 1994 we observed Speaker Newt Gingrich and his colleagues execute upon their accurate assessment, planning, and solutions to speed past the old, tired Congressional pack. As no group is immune to their own stagnation, 2006 & 2008 ushered in yet another era when future concerns [social, economic, demographic, international] were addressed with fresh faces and fresh solutions. This is not a partisan comment. Regardless of which party or philosophy you favor, you cannot escape the statistics noted in our prior installment that made the 111th Congressional majority look like a negative of the 104th Congressional majority.
Party is not the prime determinent. Each of these victorious years required bipartisan appeal to secure ballot box majorities. The pendelum always swings...YOU can be viewed as the People's Leader with a legacy to follow--or Yesterday's News devoid of new ideas and forgotten forever.
TODAY'S QUESTION: What are YOU as a candidate (whether incumbent or challenger) doing TODAY to identify, develop, communicate and execute the solutions to the issues/problems/concerns that will plague YOUR electorate beyond November into the years to come?
The short track skating events in the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics provided physical proof of the importance of anticipating a future opportunity before the start of the race. The difference between the gold medal and wiping out along the boards was often the critical timing and quality of the planned inside/outside pass of the unwary opponent.
Building upon our previous installment, we will begin addressing how you may best capitalize upon (4) Issues of anticipated future importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position. While we will address the other three topics of issues formation in coming installments, I believe we must first look to communicating the policy item(s) that will provide fuel for your long-term electoral victory and solidify your legacy. Put aside partisan rancor for a moment, and simply recognize prior patterns of success, because YOUR winning message MUST attract and embrace more than just your base to achieve 51% in November. If all YOU can address is YOUR base, join yesterday's goats.
Long before the November 1980 Presidential Election, Ronald Reagan had accurately identified several issues that would eventually boil over in the minds of Americans. Reagan did not hesitate to develop responses and solutions to those issues [among them (a) the malaise of international communism; (b) the hunger for patriotism; (c) the burden of excessive taxation; and (d) the breakdown of the family]. Not only did Ronald Reagan approach these--and other--topics with genuine optimism, compassion and practical solutions, but he faced an opponent ill-prepared to even enter the dialogue, as evidenced in the sharp contrast of televised debates and other public appearances. President Carter yielded the lead of incumbency for a lack of anticipating, preparing for, and developing superior solutions to the issues that would define the 1980s.
Again in 1994 we observed Speaker Newt Gingrich and his colleagues execute upon their accurate assessment, planning, and solutions to speed past the old, tired Congressional pack. As no group is immune to their own stagnation, 2006 & 2008 ushered in yet another era when future concerns [social, economic, demographic, international] were addressed with fresh faces and fresh solutions. This is not a partisan comment. Regardless of which party or philosophy you favor, you cannot escape the statistics noted in our prior installment that made the 111th Congressional majority look like a negative of the 104th Congressional majority.
Party is not the prime determinent. Each of these victorious years required bipartisan appeal to secure ballot box majorities. The pendelum always swings...YOU can be viewed as the People's Leader with a legacy to follow--or Yesterday's News devoid of new ideas and forgotten forever.
TODAY'S QUESTION: What are YOU as a candidate (whether incumbent or challenger) doing TODAY to identify, develop, communicate and execute the solutions to the issues/problems/concerns that will plague YOUR electorate beyond November into the years to come?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
VICTORY 2010: REVOLUTION, CONTRACT, CHANGE OR...
"Reforming public education, cutting property taxes, fixing adult and child protective services and funding our budget can all occur when Democrats and Republicans engage in consensus and cooperation - not cynicism and combat. "
- Texas Governor Rick Perry
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."
- Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
As the two quotes above illustrate, even conservative leaders can have difficulty reaching consensus...on the merits of reaching consensus. More broadly, no single political party or grass roots movement has perfected nor obtained a monopoly on building consensus. Yet, electoral and legislative results of the past three decades underscore the importance of building and maintaining consensus throughout the political process, from ballot box to legislative chamber.
I am not attempting to dictate that one American political party is or has been superior to the other. Once we cut through the chest-beating rhetoric of cable news soundbites, town hall meetings, and grass roots rallies, we are left with the reality that the same American public ushered in the Reagan Revolution, the Contract with America, and Change We Can Believe In.
Mathematically, the 104th Congress (1994) elected 55 (R) and 45 (D) Senators; 228 (R) and 206 (D) Representatives. The 111th Congress (2008) elected 40 (R) and 58 (D) Senators; 178 (R) and 256 (D) Represenatives. Fourteen years did not see the entire demography of the nation shift politically, but instead followed a pendelum of social and fiscal policy. Just as midwestern union autoworkers rallied around Ronald Reagan when the economy necessitated strong fiscal leadership, families facing lost jobs and health care crises rallied about Barack Obama. People vote nationally and statewide for the economic, educational, and social policies that they view as most relevant to their own households. 1980, 1994, and 2008 demonstrated that one party more than the other delivered a message that resonated with greater than 50% of voters--plain and simple.
In future installments, we will be addressing how we may increase your share of your electorate by carefully examining and executing upon: (1) Issues upon which you hold very strong, well-defined, and possibly long-term positions; (2) Issues upon which your opponents hold very strong, well-defined, and possibly long-term positions; (3) Issues of current importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position; and (4) Issues of anticipated future importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position.
TODAY'S QUESTION: How will your campaign ensure that your message engenders the victorious spirit of 1980, 1994 and 2008?
- Texas Governor Rick Perry
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."
- Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
As the two quotes above illustrate, even conservative leaders can have difficulty reaching consensus...on the merits of reaching consensus. More broadly, no single political party or grass roots movement has perfected nor obtained a monopoly on building consensus. Yet, electoral and legislative results of the past three decades underscore the importance of building and maintaining consensus throughout the political process, from ballot box to legislative chamber.
I am not attempting to dictate that one American political party is or has been superior to the other. Once we cut through the chest-beating rhetoric of cable news soundbites, town hall meetings, and grass roots rallies, we are left with the reality that the same American public ushered in the Reagan Revolution, the Contract with America, and Change We Can Believe In.
Mathematically, the 104th Congress (1994) elected 55 (R) and 45 (D) Senators; 228 (R) and 206 (D) Representatives. The 111th Congress (2008) elected 40 (R) and 58 (D) Senators; 178 (R) and 256 (D) Represenatives. Fourteen years did not see the entire demography of the nation shift politically, but instead followed a pendelum of social and fiscal policy. Just as midwestern union autoworkers rallied around Ronald Reagan when the economy necessitated strong fiscal leadership, families facing lost jobs and health care crises rallied about Barack Obama. People vote nationally and statewide for the economic, educational, and social policies that they view as most relevant to their own households. 1980, 1994, and 2008 demonstrated that one party more than the other delivered a message that resonated with greater than 50% of voters--plain and simple.
In future installments, we will be addressing how we may increase your share of your electorate by carefully examining and executing upon: (1) Issues upon which you hold very strong, well-defined, and possibly long-term positions; (2) Issues upon which your opponents hold very strong, well-defined, and possibly long-term positions; (3) Issues of current importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position; and (4) Issues of anticipated future importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position.
TODAY'S QUESTION: How will your campaign ensure that your message engenders the victorious spirit of 1980, 1994 and 2008?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
REDISCOVERY OF COMMON SENSE
"But I never thought it was my style or the words I used...It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation - from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery...of our values and our common sense..."
- Ronald Reagan: Farewell Address, Oval Office, January 11, 1989
Values and common sense are not partisan themes, but instead represent intergenerational principles that nearly all Americans hold as self-evident. Recent elections have produced victories that transcended party affiliation and polling. New Jersey's Chris Christie, Virginia's Bob McDonnell, and Massachusett's Scott Brown succeeded in communicating American values and common sense in a manner easily understood and rewarded by their respective electorates. Florida's Marco Rubio and Michigan's Mike Cox are likewise engaging in constructive, solution-oriented campaigns in 2010.
Each of these leaders has well understood that burdensome issues met with well-reasoned solutions may be communicated without partisan rancor so that a greater percentage of family men and women can intelligently discern and decide whom to elect as a leader.
As leaders and advisors of leaders, we must spend less time doling out red meat speeches to our loyal perennial base, and devote more of our time listening to, researching, and developing comprehensive solutions to challenges facing Independents and those outside of our traditional party tent. If we fail to constructively address a broader range of concerns than those that have served as solid sound bites, then we will find the 2010 election cycle underwhelming.
Not every issue must be met with "us-versus-them" rhetoric. As leaders we must be willing to identify issues that are currently garnering support for our opponents and develop competitive, cost-effective and realistic solutions that provide real choices to attract Independent voters whose loyalties are to values and common sense...not to elephants and donkeys. Or you cleave to base-pleasing positions largely ignored by Independents and lose the increasingly Independent electorate to an opponent willing to provide those solutions.
Principles of values and common sense must always undergird our policies, but the needs of our electorate and of our nation at large must always guide the comprehensive solutions that spring forth from our policies.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Will you be leading a diverse electorate to victory and real family-focused solutions in that "shining city upon a hill", or will you be simply preaching to the choir in sound bites?
- Ronald Reagan: Farewell Address, Oval Office, January 11, 1989
Values and common sense are not partisan themes, but instead represent intergenerational principles that nearly all Americans hold as self-evident. Recent elections have produced victories that transcended party affiliation and polling. New Jersey's Chris Christie, Virginia's Bob McDonnell, and Massachusett's Scott Brown succeeded in communicating American values and common sense in a manner easily understood and rewarded by their respective electorates. Florida's Marco Rubio and Michigan's Mike Cox are likewise engaging in constructive, solution-oriented campaigns in 2010.
Each of these leaders has well understood that burdensome issues met with well-reasoned solutions may be communicated without partisan rancor so that a greater percentage of family men and women can intelligently discern and decide whom to elect as a leader.
As leaders and advisors of leaders, we must spend less time doling out red meat speeches to our loyal perennial base, and devote more of our time listening to, researching, and developing comprehensive solutions to challenges facing Independents and those outside of our traditional party tent. If we fail to constructively address a broader range of concerns than those that have served as solid sound bites, then we will find the 2010 election cycle underwhelming.
Not every issue must be met with "us-versus-them" rhetoric. As leaders we must be willing to identify issues that are currently garnering support for our opponents and develop competitive, cost-effective and realistic solutions that provide real choices to attract Independent voters whose loyalties are to values and common sense...not to elephants and donkeys. Or you cleave to base-pleasing positions largely ignored by Independents and lose the increasingly Independent electorate to an opponent willing to provide those solutions.
Principles of values and common sense must always undergird our policies, but the needs of our electorate and of our nation at large must always guide the comprehensive solutions that spring forth from our policies.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Will you be leading a diverse electorate to victory and real family-focused solutions in that "shining city upon a hill", or will you be simply preaching to the choir in sound bites?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
PRINCIPLES AND CHARACTER
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." - Ronald Reagan
"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life." -Ronald Reagan
One cannot deny that Ronald Reagan exemplified consistent adherence to conservative principles, among them free enterprise, states' rights, and democracy. President Reagan's consistent opposition to the insidious influences of socialism & communism domestically and abroad served to protect and project the nation's strength at home and infiltrated even the Iron Curtain.
Reagan also knew how to accomplish his objectives (strengthening our military) or to rein in and recast other's objectives (the 1983 Social Security Act with then-House Speaker Tip O'Neal) without compromising core principles, attacking an opponent's character, or being perceived by others as a man of narrow extremism. Those who didn't agree with his policy objectives could often still share a laugh or a frosty beverage with the congenial "Great Communicator."
Our 40th President knew that regardless of the policy and principled differences that he and others might have shared, his perpetual optimism and belief in the strength and character of America, Americans and American Free Enterprise would not allow him to devolve into petty partisan bickering. If he disagreed with someone, he said so openly and often with a smile.
Ronald Reagan could also acknowledge that Americans had more in common than what might separate them. Other than lunatic extremists and malcontents, a large majority of Americans love God, love their families, love freedom, embrace economic enterprise and are willing to join together and fight (and die, if necessary) to protect all four pillars. While standing up for his principles with character, Reagan focused his attention upon building a stronger America and world that would draw diverse people together instead of focusing upon meaningless differences that would drive neighbors apart.
Look around you...if you're a candidate, are you willing to faithfully represent and serve ALL the citizens of your district upon being elected --including those citizens who openly opposed you? Now THAT demonstrates your character. If you are a supporter of a candidate or a ballot measure, are you willing to engage in peaceful and respectful two-way (listening & speaking) dialogue with opponents of your candidate or ballot measure? THAT demonstrates your character.
Don't compromise your principles, but also don't forget how to be a neighbor, an American. Yelling, besmirching character, negatively stereotyping, and mischaracterizing positions with broad slogans may fan the flames of the already faithful, but will do NOTHING to win the hearts and minds (and votes) of the ever critical Independent voters. 50.1% looks a whole lot different than 49.9% the morning after Election Day.
TODAY'S QUESTION: In the hours that follow the closing of the polls, will you be receiving or will you be making the concessionary and congratulatory phone call? [Your connection with Independents will determine the outcome.]
"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life." -Ronald Reagan
One cannot deny that Ronald Reagan exemplified consistent adherence to conservative principles, among them free enterprise, states' rights, and democracy. President Reagan's consistent opposition to the insidious influences of socialism & communism domestically and abroad served to protect and project the nation's strength at home and infiltrated even the Iron Curtain.
Reagan also knew how to accomplish his objectives (strengthening our military) or to rein in and recast other's objectives (the 1983 Social Security Act with then-House Speaker Tip O'Neal) without compromising core principles, attacking an opponent's character, or being perceived by others as a man of narrow extremism. Those who didn't agree with his policy objectives could often still share a laugh or a frosty beverage with the congenial "Great Communicator."
Our 40th President knew that regardless of the policy and principled differences that he and others might have shared, his perpetual optimism and belief in the strength and character of America, Americans and American Free Enterprise would not allow him to devolve into petty partisan bickering. If he disagreed with someone, he said so openly and often with a smile.
Ronald Reagan could also acknowledge that Americans had more in common than what might separate them. Other than lunatic extremists and malcontents, a large majority of Americans love God, love their families, love freedom, embrace economic enterprise and are willing to join together and fight (and die, if necessary) to protect all four pillars. While standing up for his principles with character, Reagan focused his attention upon building a stronger America and world that would draw diverse people together instead of focusing upon meaningless differences that would drive neighbors apart.
Look around you...if you're a candidate, are you willing to faithfully represent and serve ALL the citizens of your district upon being elected --including those citizens who openly opposed you? Now THAT demonstrates your character. If you are a supporter of a candidate or a ballot measure, are you willing to engage in peaceful and respectful two-way (listening & speaking) dialogue with opponents of your candidate or ballot measure? THAT demonstrates your character.
Don't compromise your principles, but also don't forget how to be a neighbor, an American. Yelling, besmirching character, negatively stereotyping, and mischaracterizing positions with broad slogans may fan the flames of the already faithful, but will do NOTHING to win the hearts and minds (and votes) of the ever critical Independent voters. 50.1% looks a whole lot different than 49.9% the morning after Election Day.
TODAY'S QUESTION: In the hours that follow the closing of the polls, will you be receiving or will you be making the concessionary and congratulatory phone call? [Your connection with Independents will determine the outcome.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
