Original Article "Winning the Wendy Davis Vote" By Amy Miller, contributor for Rare.com
http://rare.us/story/winning-the-wendy-davis-vote/

"Now is the perfect time for avowed Republicans and grassroots activists alike to truly hone their messaging on women’s issues like abortion, gender, and sexuality."  -- Amy Miller

This is a tremendous article.  Truly outstanding.
 
Our advantage in states like Texas should be GROWING, not withering into contention by 2020, and the one thing really killing us is poor messaging on social issues.  No doubt about it.  Here are a few of my recommendations:
 
1.  Stake out a solid position supporting “every individual choice that does not remove someone else’s  choice” —then apply this standard evenly across the board. 
  
Without this standard, we are left pushing our moral preferences, and that is a guarantee of further dwindling
returns.  Understand, our moral preferences aren’t bad—not at all—but we can’t win people to them without first winning people to a common starting point.  Otherwise, WE’RE LEFT JUST SHOUTING AT EACH OTHER.
 
2.  Allow this standard to make us the intelligent rival to the Dem’s ruthless emotionalism.  
  
Case in point:  Abortion. Once we accept the “every individual choice that does not remove someone else’s choice” standard, abortion stops being baby killers versus women haters (a losing argument for pro-lifers, since women can vote and the unborn can’t), to simply discussing when the unborn become human lives.  As soon as they are human lives, our standard prevents one choice from removing their choice to live. 
  
Simple. Unemotional.  DEFENSIBLE.  And in the case of Ms. Davis’s demand for late-term abortions, EMINANTLY WINNABLE. Very, very few people support late-term and partial birth abortions, and
  that number actually appears to be dropping. Applying our standard across Texas would not only bury Ms. Davis, but result in stunning defeats statewide for her party.
 
You see, this debate heavily favors the pro-life side, since the increasing use of high-tech ultrasounds is making many converts—basically, the more the evidence, the more we win.  Pitting baby killers against women haters, however, favors not only the pro-abortion crowd, but more specifically, the pro-abortion DEMOCRAT crowd.  Why Democrats?  Because they feed off rage and emotionalism, so stoking anger puts the game squarely on their home turf.
 
3. Regarding abortion, here’s another big advantage with our single standard:  It places far greater emphasis on funding and responsibility—big winners for Republicans.  Put simply, we can ask, “Why should the government FORCE a pro-life person to pay for the personal decisions of pro-abortion people?”  Should the government FORCE one group’s choices to be funded by another?  At that point, they’re clearly damaging your choice with theirs—and this violates our standard.
 
4.  I could apply this single standard to several issues like gay marriage, marijuana, gun ownership, etc.—and you’ll find it clarifies each of them—but instead, let me finish with the greatest reason to offer and apply this
standard:  EVERYONE AGREES WITH IT.
 
In other words, no more watching society drift further and further away from our points of view.  Instead, they will drift rather quickly in our direction.  While merely pushing our moral preferences creates animosity devoid of reason, promoting our single standard creates camaraderie and surprisingly open conversations.  The hate decreases; the logic increases.  WE WIN.

So in conclusion, let me strongly agree with Amy Miller.  Let’s jump off our hopeless path of diminishing returns and embrace a new approach. Let’s get ahead of the game.  Let’s win.

I watched “Hannity” for a while the other night.  A very depressing show.  No, there were no flood victims or post mortems on Detroit, as these would actually seem uplifting by comparison.   Flooded communities can rebuild.  Detroit can bulldoze its neighborhoods so there will be…well…fewer Detroit neighborhoods.  And of course, those stories feature great heroism and charity, like  volunteers delivering truckloads of food to New Orleans, or unsung bulldozer operators erasing decades of Democrat “progress.”

Yes, most cloudy shows reveal a silver lining. But not this one.

On this dreadful excursion into Hades, Sean spoke with a group of college students, half of whom were Democrats. Sure, there were Republicans too, but one could hardly enjoy their pleasing melodies—engulfed, as they were, by a shrill onslaught of idiocy.  These young Democrats weren’t voters.  They were looters.  The singular goal of each vote (or votes) they’d cast would be attaining “social justice” through seizing or distributing even more money they hadn’t earned.

Depressing.  Nauseating. On this evening, the only act of heroism was my wife wrenching away the gun I had pressed to my shaking head—or at least it seemed heroic until I saw she was grabbing it for herself.  Then it seemed selfish.  I mean, watching these parasites was horrible, but you’d think she could wait her turn…

At one point, Sean asked the looters what percentage of their wages should be taken in taxes.  One by one, they dodged the question like it was a job offer. Finally, one girl showed some courage, basically saying she’d be fine
with the government taking 60%, so long as she’d receive a good return on her investment (quality schools, programs, etc.).

I disagreed, but her view was refreshing.  It showed intellect.  Even coherency.  Pausing our tug of war over the means to Death’s sweet release, my wife and I turned and listened.   Sean did his usual solid job  returning  volley, but I also wanted to ask this girl some questions:

1.     I don’t agree, but you sound like a wise young woman who demands quality.  Tell me, do you feel today’s Federal Government is delivering?
 
2.     Shouldn’t a savvy shopper like you be allowed to keep more of your own money, so you could freely choose the best quality in all services you seek—including education?
 
3.     And wouldn’t your free choices offer a great example to others?  Couldn’t they watch you and say, “Man, I want to get the best bang for the buck like she does!”
 
4.     On another topic, when Berkeley offers a class called “Advanced Principles of Looting,” do you have to pay for it?  (okay, I’d just think this one instead of asking it)

Sean mentioned how half of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax.  Predictably, the looters gushed their Leftist talking point, “Yeah, but they pay sales taxes!”  I winced. “Ummm…right,” I thought.  “The half that pays
income taxes also pays sales taxes, and sales taxes alone don’t begin to cover what non-income-taxpayers receive in services…YOU KOOKS.”

Roads, bridges, schools, national defense, Entitlements, food stamps, fire departments, police, etc. etc.—do these looters actually think everything they get is covered by sales taxes?  Really?

Sometimes I wish we Conservatives could employ CIA-style tactics.  Seriously. Each of these looters should be tied to their chairs with eyelids taped open, then forced to watch hours of Bill Whittle videos.  We could call this “Enhanced Americanization,” or simply, “Scared Smart.”

But let me close with the questioning I want posed to these young lawyers for dependency:

“If your liberal ideas are so superior, then how come all the people calling for secession (forming their own states or country), are Conservatives?  When guys like Rush Limbaugh propose cutting the nation in two and allowing Liberals their choice of which half to run, why do the Lefties still think this is unfair? Honestly, if Conservatives are such a burden, then why won’t Liberals allow a fair divorce, where we divide up assets and go our separate ways?”

The answer is simple:  Every parasite needs a host body—not the other way around. Every California needs a Texas—not the other way around.  Every union needs a profitable business to employ it—not the other way
around. 

And from what I witnessed on this tragic episode of “Hannity,” nearly every college—much like their grand experiment, Detroit—needs a bulldozer.