The Party Of Choice
Connect with us on social media:
  • Home
  • Get To Know Us
    • What is Conservatism?
    • What Do We Believe?
    • Tyranny of the Majority
    • "Tough" Issues >
      • Abortion
      • Gay Marriage
      • Marijuana
    • Conservatism, Free Thinking, and a Central Vision
    • Invitation
  • The Eyes of One
  • Videos
    • Choice Words That Win Videos
    • The Refinery
    • Radio Interviews
  • Articles
    • Movie Reviews
  • Sponsor an Ad
  • Unite The Right
  • Events
  • Store
  • Resources
    • Talking Points from Grassroots Radio Colorado Show
    • Petition
    • spOILed The Movie - Time to Fill Up on Truth
    • Flyers
  • Contact Us

White Boys and Guns                                       By Andy Peth

8/6/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture
Several decades ago, it was far easier to buy a gun, but there were fewer shootings. That's just fact. And yet, some people want us to believe today's culture has nothing to do with these killings.  They blame the ease with which we get guns, but that goes directly against history.
 
Meanwhile, these anti-gunners also ignore the biggest fact: Nearly all shootings occur in cities run by anti-gun leaders they’ve elected.  Hello, Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit.  Letting these people decide who gets a gun is like letting James Comey decide who gets a FISA warrant. 
 
More guns aren’t the problem; nor is the ease of buying them. Our culture is the problem.  Today's American culture features unending bitterness, in which every school, media outlet and entertainment industry "raises awareness" for groups they deem oppressed.  Hey, I hate oppression too, but these people always blame one group:  White, heterosexual men.
 
And this group, incidentally, now perpetrates most mass shootings.
 
Let’s look at that.

Has it occurred to anyone that using every societal platform to blame one group could provoke that group's worst elements? No, I’m not shifting blame from the shooters—they own their evil. 
 
But schools constantly preach tolerance of every group…except straight white men.  TV and movies make straight white men the villains at a dizzying rate.  Watch almost any media (especially sports media like ESPN), and you'll see stories of women or people of color "bravely fighting against the system holding them down"—leaving white heterosexual men as their de facto oppressors.
 
Not convinced?  Try this little test: Watch commercials for a couple days, counting how many times a straight white guy is bad or dumb, while someone of another group is good or smart.  Then count the times others are bad or dumb, while the straight white guy is good or smart.  This will open your eyes.
 
Example: Home Protection commercials. Many products are advertised to protect your home from criminals.  But when dangerous people are depicted, stalking outside your door, how many of these villains are women or men of color?  None.  It’s always white guys, and presumably straight white guys, since they’re not holding hands while plotting evil.  Thankfully, a reasonable monthly fee will protect you from all this white-oxic masculinity.
 
Could other groups be depicted as threats?  Uh-uh.  That would be, you know…bigoted.
 
Look, I get it. Our nation waited a ridiculous 220 years before electing a President who wasn't a white heterosexual man. That creates animosity and talk of glass ceilings.  Fair enough.
 
But we’ve gone far beyond calls for equality.  At all levels, from academia to media to sports to commercials, America’s culture casts straight white men in the villain's role.  And young white men hear this message—or see it—hundreds of times each year. 
 
  • America’s history?  It’s slavery and chauvinism—by guys like you.
  • You’re succeeding in life?  White privilege.
  • You’re not succeeding?  Laziness.
  • A person of color was rude to you?  Understand him.
  • A woman was rude to you?  Understand her.
  • You were rude?  Admit your hate.
  • You disagree with them?  Until you walk in their shoes (which you can never do), you have no right to speak.
  • They disagree with you?  Diverse opinions open your mind.
  • Straight white male victim of assault?  Crime.
  • Any other victim of assault?  Hate crime.
  • You want immigrants to come legally?  You hate brown people.
  • You support Voter ID?  Voter Suppression.
  • White athlete wants more money?  It’s about greed.
  • Black athlete wants more money?  It’s about respect.
  • Anti-immigrant El Paso shooter?  Trump stokes hate and shootings.
  • Leftwing Dayton shooter?  Silence.
  • Make America Great Again?  That means, “Make America White Again.”
 
Over and over, the message is clear.  Straight white men are the problem.  Just watch TV.  Or go to any company’s “diversity” training, as these bash sessions “raise awareness” against straight white men (I’ve been to some doozies).   
 
Everywhere straight white men go in America, they receive no quotas, no special scholarships, no advantages whatsoever—and then they’re told they’ve “got it made.”  Over and over...day after day…from every direction.
 
Does this cause shootings?  No.  Severe mental health issues cause shootings, and shooters alone bear the blame.  But when a group sees itself depicted as the problem in setting after setting…
  
…then that group lives with a baseline of frustration.  Not hate, mind you.  Frustration.  A deep longing for a nation without endless verbal minefields, diversity bash sessions, and home protection commercials.  A nation where blame and merit come from one’s actions, not one’s demographics.  A nation where groups receiving decades of disproportionate benefits from trillions in wealth redistribution don’t then demand reparations…
 
…because you’ve got it made.
 
A nation where laws are the same for everyone.
 
A nation where all people are beautiful, and every child is a miracle. 
 
A nation at peace.
 
Until then, the mental health issues of some young white men will be exacerbated by an underlying frustration—a frustration so ingrained through 24/7 messaging, they barely know it’s there.  A frustration of being the bad guys for an entire society.  A frustration of being silenced when others speak freely.  A frustration of being called racist, sexist, or homophobic—unless they embrace Democrat politics of division and preference.  A frustration of being told they have it made, when no one’s giving them anything.
 
I don’t say this for me.  I’m a man of peace, and I adore people—all of them.  I say this to assess a threat—a threat that grows when one group is blamed while others are excused.  Inevitably, the blamed group becomes bitter, while excused groups become predatory.  Why do black kids throw buckets of water on cops?  Because they can.  Why do gay couples target Christian bakeries?  Because they can.  Why do  women launch false accusations of sexual harassment against Supreme Court nominees?  You guessed it—because they can.
 
I worry about America, and all its myriads of precious people.  I worry about a country where it has become tougher to buy guns, but we have more shootings.
 
I worry about young black men shooting up city streets and young white men shooting up mass events.  I worry about bullets hitting good folk who just wanted to shop at Walmart.  I worry about that precious black kid who was just walking home, thinking of how to ask out a girl who makes him nervous.  Then a shot rings out.
 
I worry about America.  All of it.  And today, with an entire society poking the chests of straight white men with accusing fingers--blaming, provoking, dismissing, frustrating--today, I'm worried about white boys with guns.
 
But hey, what do I know?  I’m just a white guy.  I haven’t walked in your shoes. 
 
And besides, I’ve got it made.
1 Comment

A Democrat Debate                      By Andy Peth

6/6/2019

5 Comments

 
Picture



​(As Democrat presidential candidates file onto stage, the moderator begins shuffling through her notes.  But then she notices another chair being placed next to her, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sits down)
​MODERATOR:  “I’m sorry, but why are you here?”
 
AOC:  “I run this Party now!  These people must win my hand in endorsement!  Yay!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Yay?”
 
AOC:  “I so, so promise I won’t make a sound!  Please?”
 
MODERATOR:  “Look, it’s just not—”
 
AOC:  “Pleeeeeeazzzzze???”
 
MODERATOR:  “Uh, sure.  Do any candidates object?”
(Awkward silence, then the candidates start talking over each other)
​THE CANDIDATES:  “Of course not!  She’s so smart!  It’s perfectly natural!  And she’s so smart!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Alright then.  Since Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is here, let’s start off with a group question.  Show of hands:  How many here support Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal?”
(Long silence, with candidates looking at each other)
​AOC:  “Oooohhh, I’m getting a pouty face!”
(Slowly, one by one, they raise their hands)
​AOC:  “Yay!  They all like me!  Yay!”
(The candidates are all looking down.  Alexandria is smiling proudly)
AOC:  “They like me ‘cause I’m a snowflake!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Actually, that term has a negative—”
 
AOC:  “It means I’m unique!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Well…sure.”
 
AOC:  “Did you know every snowflake is different from…from everything that isn’t a snowflake?”
(Silence)
​AOC:  “But snowflakes won’t matter if we don’t do something soon!”
 
MODERATOR:  “About what?”
 
AOC:  “Global Warming!  We must stop Global Warming!  Otherwise, in twelve years, the Earth will be…older!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Really?  Can you predict how much older?”
 
AOC:  “No way!  If I do, stupid Trump will just take me all literal!"
 
MODERATOR:  “Uh huh—"
 
AOC:  “Because he’s racist!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Got it.  Can we start now?”
 
AOC:  “Yay!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Is that a yes?”
(Beto O’Roarke speaks up)
​BETO:  “I like you, Alexandria!  I even want all border walls torn down!  I want this country unprotected, no matter what the cost!”
 
AOC:  “Not enough!  More yay!”
 
BETO:  “Throw all ICE officers in prison!  Throw them in Mexican prisons!  Treat them as war criminals!”  
 
AOC:  (clapping)  “Yay!  Yay!”
(Bernie Sanders jumps in)
​BERNIE:  “Let death row murderers vote!  Let the Boston Bomber vote!  And kill all cows before…before…before they fart us off the planet!”
 
AOC:  “Yay!”
 
BERNIE:  (shouting, eyes twitching)  “It’s the cows or us, I tell yuh!  They must turn from their wicked ways!  Then again, turning them probably won’t stop the problem!  Maybe we should tip them!  Where was I?”
 
MODERATOR:  “Senator Sanders, let’s start with a question for you.” 
 
BERNIE:  (still shouting)  “What?”
 
MODERATOR:  (louder)  “We’re starting with you now!”
 
BERNIE:  “When?”
 
MODERATOR:  “Now!”
 
BERNIE:  “What?”
 
MODERATOR:  “It’s your turn!”
 
BERNIE:  “Hurry Marty!  Start the DeLorean!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Excuse me?”
 
BERNIE:  “Remember!  88 miles per hour!”
 
MODERATOR:  “You know, I’m just gonna ask my question.  Senator Sanders, the Green New Deal would cost $93 Trillion—”
 
BERNIE:  “—uh huh—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—and you’ve also proposed Medicare for all, free college, free housing for illegal immigrants, and many other programs—”
 
BERNIE:  “—uh huh—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—so by our latest estimates, all your ideas combined would cost more than relocating the entire population of America—”
 
BERNIE:  “—uh huh—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—to Saturn.”
 
BERNIE:  “—uh huh—”
(Long silence, as Bernie and the Moderator just look at each other)
​MODERATOR:  “Okay, my next question is for Pete Buttigieg.  Mayor Pete, you’ve created quite a stir calling out Vice President Pence, but what is your plan to defeat President Trump in 2020?”
 
PETE:  “I’ll start by reminding people how Donald Trump chose Mike Pence—the worst purveyor of hate ever!  He doesn’t think being gay is Christian!  So he disagrees with me, and disagreement with me is hate!  MIKE PENCE HATES ME!”
 
MODERATOR:  “I see.  Perhaps some policy differences—”
 
PETE:  “I saw Mike Pence outside my window last night!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Mayor, it’s doubtful you—”
 
PETE:  “He was judging me!  I was just feeding the poor while rescuing puppies and honoring veterans, and I looked up, and there was Mike Pence with hate in his eyes!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Mayor—”
 
PETE:  “And I shouted, ‘Why do you torment me, evil Mike Pence!  And why are you so white?’”
 
MODERATOR:  “So white?”  
 
PETE:  “Look at him!  He’s like that girl from ‘The Ring!’  I also saw him staring in the window when I was at a gay bar!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Mayor—”
 
PETE:  “Then I saw him in my rearview mirror!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Mayor—”
 
PETE:  “He’s here right now!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Mayor—”
 
PETE:  (slapping at the air)  “Aaaaaaahhhhhh!!”
(Mayor Pete runs off stage.  Everyone is silent for several moments, then…)
​AOC:  “Yay!”
(More silence)
​AOC:  “My favorite color is happy!”
(More silence)
​MODERATOR:  “Okay, my next question is for Joe Biden.  Mr. Vice President—”
 
BIDEN:  “Hey, call me Joe!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Okay…Joe…you’ve recently had to deal with accusations of groping women.”
 
BIDEN:  “Look, it’s not groping.  Groping is abusive.”
 
MODERATOR:  “Well, a couple of them—”
 
BIDEN:  “What I do is more personal, where you really get to know someone.  I call it, ‘probing.’”
 
MODERATOR:  “Please don’t call it that.”
 
BIDEN:  “Because people are hurting, you know?  They have empty places in their hearts—emotional cavities—and I tell them, ‘I’m Joe Biden, and I’m here to probe your cavities.’”
 
MODERATOR:  “My next question is for—”
 
BIDEN:   “But don’t worry!  All members of my staff wear protective clothing!  Here’s a picture of my secretary!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Oh, dear God—"
 
BIDEN:   “It’s tasteful, without being provocative—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—she looks like the Michelin Man—"
 
BIDEN:   “—and it says, ‘I’m a big shot campaign staffer, and I can’t feel anyone touching me.’”
 
MODERATOR:  “Joe—" 
 
BIDEN:   “I tell ya, it’s fun watching them move around the office.”
 
MODERATOR:  “Joe—”
 
BIDEN:  “They’re like bumper cars!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Joe—" 
 
BIDEN:  “Hey, call me Joe!”
(silence)
MODERATOR:  “Joe, what about allegations of hair sniffing?”
 
BIDEN:  “One word:  Helmets.”
 
MODERATOR:  “Let’s turn to freshman Senator from California, Kamala Harris.  Senator Harris, what sets you apart in this Democrat field?”
 
KAMALA:  “I’m a black woman.”
 
MODERATOR:  “I see that.  Anything else?”
 
KAMALA:  “Truth is, we all agree on every issue, but I am a black woman.”​
(Cory Booker jumps in)
​BOOKER:  “Hey, I’m a black man!”
 
KAMALA:  “Oh please!  That’s only one demographic!  I’ve got two!”
 
BOOKER:  “But I’m blacker than Obama!  I took a shade test!”
(Liz Warren chimes in)
​WARREN:  “You two should be ashamed, peddling race for political gain!  My tribal elders would never approve!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Senator Warren, you are 1/1024th Indian.”
 
WARREN:  “And damn proud of it!”
 
MODERATOR:  “That’s like, one eyelash.”
 
WARREN:  “But I identify as Indian!  I’m just trapped in a white body!  GOD MADE ME WRONG!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Senator Warren, I have an Irish Setter.  He’s more Indian than you.”
 
WARREN:  “But—"
(Cory Booker gets angry)
​BOOKER:  “Hey, if Liz can identify as a woman—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—Indian—”
 
BOOKER:  “—as an Indian—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—better—”
 
BOOKER:  “—then I can identify as a woman!  A blacker than Obama woman, with a side of Indian and two dashes of gay Muslim!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Gay Muslim?”
 
BOOKER:  “I can prove it!  I’ll throw myself off a building!”
 
MODERATOR:  “You don’t have to—”
 
BOOKER:  “—and I’m also part Viking!  I’m a gay Muslim Viking woman!  Whatever it takes!  Oh God, my campaign needs a reboot!”
(Kamala jumps back in)
​KAMALA:  “Cory, identifying as a woman doesn’t make you a woman!”
(Everyone gasps)
​KAMALA:  “Oh come on!  I’m black!  I’m a woman!  Black plus woman!  Case closed!”
 
WARREN:  “I’m Indian!  And maybe a woman!  Case closed!”
(Joe Biden rubs his own shoulders)
​BIDEN:  “I’m a woman, too!  Oh…yeah…”
 
AOC:  “I’m Hispanic I think!  Yay!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Alexandria—"
 
BERNIE:  (yelling)  “What?”
 
MODERATOR:  “Not you, Bernie—”
 
BERNIE:  “I’m not Bernie?”
 
MODERATOR:  “Let’s turn to Congressman Eric Swalwell.  Congressman, you’ve stated that if gun owners resist your confiscation of their automatic weapons, it will be ‘a short war’ because ‘the government has nukes.’  Do you intend to nuke your fellow citizens?”
 
SWALWELL:  “Of course not!”
 
MODERATOR:  “That’s good to hear, because—”
 
SWALWELL:  “The threat is enough!  We’ll just wheel nuclear warheads up to their front doors and ring the doorbell.  When these NRA crazies open the door and see what’s coming, they’ll back down!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Warheads?”
 
SWALWELL:  “We’ll put a big fuse on the back, with a guy holding a torch.  It’s mostly for show.”
 
MODERATOR:  “Congressman, can you tell us what percentage of gun crimes are actually committed by NRA members?”
 
SWALWELL:  “Well, I don’t have the numbers at hand…”
 
MODERATOR:  “Just an approximation, Congressman.  What percentage of gun crimes do NRA members commit?”
 
SWALWELL:  “…accounting for NRA membership levels…carry the one…”
 
MODERATOR:  “How many, Congressmen?”
 
SWALWELL:  “…minus depreciation…”
 
MODERATOR:  “What?”
 
SWALWELL:  “…do you want gross or net?”
 
MODERATOR:  “Best guess, sir.  What percentage of gun crimes do NRA members commit?”
 
SWALWELL:  “All of them.”
 
MODERATOR:  “Okay, so—wait, all of them?”
 
SWALWELL:  “I’m afraid so.  The numbers don’t lie.”
 
MODERATOR:  “Congressman, most gun crimes involve gangs—”
 
SWALWELL:  “—NRA gangs, yes—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—or robberies—”
 
SWALWELL:  “—gotta pay those NRA dues—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—and Muslim Jihadists?”
 
SWALWELL:  “The religion of peace never kills—unless they join the NRA!  We should look into that!  (stares into camera)  And if I’m elected President, we will.”
(Joe Biden’s hand is raised)
​MODERATOR:  “Would you like to weigh in, Joe?”
 
BIDEN:  “Are we almost finished?  I need to pee.”
 
MODERATOR:  “Joe, you can excuse yourself at any time.”
 
BIDEN:  “Oh, thank you!”
 
MODERATOR:  “No problem.  Anything to stop you from talking.”
 
BIDEN:  “Because I really have to go—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—please stop talking—”
 
BIDEN:  “—you know how, when you have to go so bad—”
 
MODERATOR:  “—please stop talking—”
 
BIDEN:  “—that when you finally go, there’s an actual recoil?”
 
MODERATOR:  “JOE, PLEASE STOP TALKING!”
 
BIDEN:  “Hey, call me Joe!”
(The moderator slumps her head, and points to the exit.  Joe scampers out)
​MODERATOR:  “Okay, let’s hear from another candidate.  Governor John Hickenlooper, what is your message for reaching America?”
 
HICK:  “Hi, I’m John Hickenlooper, and I’m—”
 
KAMALA:  “—WHITE!”
 
BERNIE:  “He is?  You bastud!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Bernie—”
 
SWALWELL:  “Yeah!  Kill Whitey!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Congressman—”
 
(Everyone’s shouting)  “Down with Whitey!  Reparations!  Seize Whitey’s land, like in South Africa!”
 
(from offstage)  “Mike Pence!”
(Liz Warren stretches out her hands)
​WARREN:  “Whitey drove us from…THE GOOD LAND!”
 
MODERATOR:  “For goodness sakes, most of you are white!”
 
WARREN:  “But I identify as—”
 
EVERYONE:  “SHUT UP!”
​MODERATOR:  “Okay, let’s have another question for Senator Sanders—”
 
BERNIE:  “What?”
 
MODERATOR:  “The debate is still going, Bernie.”
 
BERNIE:  “Did I win?”
(More silence)
​MODERATOR:  “Bernie, there’s been a large drop in your support among young voters.  Could this be because they now have…you know…jobs?”
 
BERNIE:  “That’s the problem!  They’re chronically employed!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Chronically employed?”
 
BERNIE:  “This Trump economy is a disease, I tell yuh!  Do you think young people want this?  How can they find purpose while earning a living?  How can they find a sense of accomplishment?  That’s only found staying at home on food stamps while other people pay for your college and healthcare!  THAT’S LIVING, I TELL YUH!”
 
MODERATOR:  “But, everyone’s hiring right now.”
 
BERNIE:  “Young people won’t fall for all this materialism!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Even my kid started a corporation.”
 
BERNIE:  “They need our help!”
 
MODERATOR:  “He’s five.”
 
BERNIE:  “They’re helpless, I tell yuh!”
 
MODERATOR:  “He’s wearing a suit…and a Trump wig…it’s eerie…”
 
BERNIE:  “Young voters will come back to me, as soon as they realize how helpless they are!  THEIR HELPLESSNESS IS MY KEY TO VICTORY!!”
(AOC pipes up)
​AOC:  “I have a Bouncy Castle shaped like Donald Trump’s head!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Alexandria—”
 
AOC:  “Get it?  It’s like I’m in Trump’s head!  And it’s like I’m bouncing!  Because I am!”
 
MODERATOR:  “OMIGOSH, WILL YOU SHUT UP?”
(AOC’s lower lip starts to quiver.  The candidates jump in…)
​THE CANDIDATES:  “How can you say that?  She’s so smart!  She totally belongs here!  And she’s so smart!  Borders are racist!  SHE’S WRITING OUR PLATFORM!”
(Joe Biden returns)
​BIDEN:  “Okay, I’m back!  False alarm.”
 
AOC:  “Yay!  That’s the best kind of alarm!”
 
MODERATOR:  “Okay, that’s it!  I can’t take any more!  This debate is over!”
(There is silence, as all the candidates look at each other.  Then…)
​BERNIE:  “Did I win?”
 
MODERATOR:  (head buried in hands)  “Sure, Bernie.  You won.”
 
BERNIE:  “Yay!”
5 Comments

Jussie's Confession                           By Andy Peth

2/21/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture


​(The scene is a police interrogation room.  Calmly seated at the lone table is a detective, going over his notes.  The door opens.  Escorted in by a big, stone-faced guard, actor Jussie Smollett sits down across from the detective.  Smollett’s hands are cuffed)
​Detective: “Mr. Smollett, you’ve been brought here today to answer a few questions, and we just want the facts.  This is regarding your recent—oh, excuse me.  Sergeant, the handcuffs aren’t necessary.”
 
Guard:  “Those are his, sir.”
(silence)
​Detective: “I see.   Mr. Smollett, could you please take those off?”
 
Jussie:  (sighing) “If you insist.”  (removes the cuffs, and starts twirling them on his finger)  “All better?”
 
Detective:  “Set them down, please.  Thanks.  (picks up report)  Mr. Smollett, let’s cut to the chase.  You’re accused of staging an attack on yourself, making it appear this attack came from supporters of the current President.  It says here you paid two associates of Nigerian descent several thousand dollars to rehearse, and then carry out this attack while wearing ski masks.  Are these the facts of the case?”
 
Jussie:  (waves one hand in air, snapping fingers three times)  “You got it!”
 
Detective:  “Gay people don’t actually do that, Mr. Smollett—maybe in the 90’s.”
 
Jussie:  “We don’t?  Well then, I’ll just say it!  Snap, snap, snap!”
 
Detective:  “Stick to the facts, please.  And the handcuffs routine is pretty dated, too.”
 
Jussie:  “Wwwwhaaaaaaat?”
(prolonged silence)
​Detective:  “Maybe Lieutenant Foster can come in here.  He’s gay.  But he’ll probably shoot you.”
 
Jussie:  “I’m good.”
 
Detective:  “Let’s get back to the case.  After allegedly staging the attack, you claimed these were white men wearing red hats, throwing bleach on you and shouting slurs regarding your race and sexual orientation.  You also claim they shouted, ‘This is MAGA country!’…in Chicago.  Are you fully aware of these charges?” 
 
Jussie:  “Of course!  Don’t you think I know my own work?”
 
Detective:  “Just yes or no, please, and…wait, you’re admitting it?”
 
Jussie:  “With pride, snap, snap, snap!  This is my bold, daring new approach!  Everything’s better with ski masks!  Like last month, in my stage production of ‘A Chorus Line,’ the whole cast—”
 
Detective:  “You did ’A Chorus Line’ with ski masks?”
 
Jussie:  “Yes!  Picture a whole row of dancers, linking arms—”
 
Detective:  “—just the facts, please—”
 
Jussie:  “—high-kicking—”
 
Detective:  “—just the facts—”
 
Jussie:  “—ski masks turning in unison—”
 
Detective:  “—too many facts—”
 
Jussie:  (singing)  “ONE!  SINGULAR SENSATION!”
 
Detective:  “Please stop, Mr. Smollett.  I can’t unthink that."
 
Jussie:  “Oh, that’s nothing!  You should see my remake of ‘Pretty Woman!’”
 
Detective:  “With ski masks?”
 
Jussie:  “Of course!  It keeps all the romance and sexiness, but adds an air of (pauses and gasps)…mystery!  Who is she?  What does she look like under there?”
 
Detective:  “Is she a woman?”
 
Jussie:  “Exactly!”
 
Detective:  “She wears a ski mask…in the tub scenes?”
 
Jussie:  “My fans demand nothing less!”
 
Detective:  “You have fans?”
 
Jussie:  “The shopping scene was tougher.  Looked like a robbery.”
 
Detective:  “You have fans?”
 
Jussie:  “But I’m not limited to ski masks!  In my latest ‘Wizard of Oz’ remake, Dorothy wears a MAGA hat while dousing the Witch with bleach!  Ooooooohhhhh…snap, snap, snap!”
 
Detective:  “Dorothy…in a MAGA hat?”
 
Jussie:  “You should have heard the Witch!  Instead of going all, ‘I’m melting!’, she’s like, ‘This stuff burns, you freaking psychos!’  Then she runs off the set and calls a lawyer!  It seemed so…so real!”
 
Detective:  “It was real, you idiot.  You threw bleach on an actress.  That’s assault.”
 
Jussie:  (waving finger in the air)  “No, that’s a statement!  A statement about white girls from Kansas committing hate crimes against people of color!”
 
Detective:  “The Witch is green, Mr. Smollett.”
 
Jussie:  “I’m raising awareness!”
 
Detective:  “She’s green, Mr. Smollett.”
 
Jussie:  “I’m using my art for social justice!  DON’T QUESTION THE CRAFT!”
 
Detective:  “Fine.  Is there anything else you’d like to confess—I mean, say?”
 
Jussie:  “No, let’s just hurry this up.  I’ve got a seat at the Oscars.”
 
Detective:  “Yeah, I don’t think you’re gonna make it, pal.”
 
Jussie:  “Well, I know Kevin Hart won’t make it!  Remember him?”
 
Detective:  “Black comic actor.  Starred in Jumanji.  Was hosting this year’s Oscars until old tweets of his surfaced, mocking gay people.”
 
Jussie:  “That’s the one!  You know, when I saw those tweets, I was like, wwwwhaaaaaaat?  So I called him and said, ‘Kevin, we don’t do hate in Hollywood, snap, snap—'”
 
Detective:  “WILL YOU STOP THAT?!”
 
Jussie:  “But Kevin will be back!  I’m overseeing his rehab!”
 
Detective:  “Oh great.”
 
Jussie:  “And next Summer, I’ve got him starring in Marvel’s newest hit, ‘Gay Panther!’” 
 
Detective:  “Gay Panther?”
 
Jussie:  “For a battle cry, Kevin extends his paw with a sexy scratching motion, and goes, ‘Grrr, baby!’”
 
Detective:  “Too many facts, Mr. Smollett.”
 
Jussie:  “It’s an action thriller, all about the most exciting theme in films today!  Tolerance!”
 
Detective:  “Tolerance?”
 
Jussie:  “Yes!  Tolerance!  Gay Panther opens with a half-hour speech on his fight for global togetherness and oneness and coexistence and…and stuff!” 
 
Detective:  “Those are all the same word, Mr. Smollett.  Let’s stick to the facts.”
 
Jussie:  “The villain—Hatemonger—will call for building walls around Wakanda—”
 
Detective:  “—Wakanda already has walls—”
 
Jussie:  “—but Gay Panther will convince Wakandans that WALLS DON’T WORK!—”
 
Detective:  “—they do for Wakanda—”
 
Jussie:  “—so Hatemonger responds with his evil catch phrase, ‘I intolerate you!’ 
 
Detective:  “What?”
 
Jussie:  “But Gay Panther shouts back, ‘Nuh-uh!  You’re not gonna Make Wakanda Great Again, you bleach-throwing Nazi!’”
 
Detective:  “Too many facts, Mr. Smollett.”
 
Jussie:  “Then Gay Panther sues Hatemonger for offensive speech!”
 
Detective:  “Thrilling.”
 
Jussie:  ”It is!  Once in court, Gay Panther gives another half-hour speech on his fight for global togetherness and oneness and coexistence—”
 
Detective:  “You really hate Kevin Hart, don’t you, Mr. Smollett?”
 
Jussie:  “At last, Warmonger is defeated, and (waving finger in the air) Gay Panther creates a world with no borders, no genders, no red hats, no Walmarts, and…and handcuffs for everyone!!!”
 
Detective:  “Wow.”
 
Jussie:  “Kevin Hart’s making a comeback, baby!  Want to do the battle cry with me?”
 
Detective:  (sets down his pen) “So let me get this straight.  When you walk out of here, you’re going to do all this for Marvel Studios, Kevin Hart, and your career?”
 
Jussie:  “Grrr, baby!  Snap, snap, snap!”
(prolonged silence)
​Detective:  “You’re free to go, Mr. Smollett.  Don’t forget your cuffs.”
0 Comments

The Positive Salesman Returns                           By Andy Peth

2/9/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
MAGA, baby.  What a State of the Union speech.
 
For a year now, while some critics said Trump should go away, I’ve said our President should just be himself.  Tweets?  Fine.  Rallies?  More, please.  Interviews on Fox?  Keep ‘em coming.
 
But in 2018, something was lost.  Cornered and attacked at every turn, our President wasn’t becoming more like himself, but less.  Besieged by unfair accusations, Trump lost some of his jovial persona—that Positive Salesman who won the White House.  Nearly unheard was his deal-making, “You’re gonna love this!” sales pitch.

Man, how I longed to hear, "We're gonna do this, and you're gonna LOVE IT!" again.   Not just that we were making things great again, but how people were going to love that greatness; how they would love doing great things in a booming workplace.  
 
But what we saw in 2018 wasn’t Positive Salesman Trump.  It was Reactive Trump—reacting to everyone opposing him.  This athlete is stupid.  That actress is ugly and makes bad movies.  Every media outlet except Fox is fake news (okay, that’s true).  Pelosi is this.  Schumer is that.  Anyone not loyal is a coward.  React, react, react.  And as the November results showed, this unnatural Trump wasn’t selling like the natural one.  (More on that later)
 
It was time to bring The Donald back.
 
On Tuesday night, Positive Salesman Trump returned in full force.  Reaching out and lightening up, our President found his groove—with astonishing results.  He avoided insults.  He applauded the high number of women in Congress.  Couched in waves of charm, even his tough stances (abortion, illegal immigration, socialism) were well received.  The Great Salesman was back.
 
You want big numbers?  Get ready: After cratering approval following the shutdown (which was still a great idea), Positive Salesman Trump’s speech scored an exquisite 76% approval among viewers, according to CBS.  And though the audience skewed Republican, Independents bolstered Trump’s numbers with a sizzling 82% thumbs up.  Remarkable.  In about 80 minutes, Positive Salesman Trump had erased a year of Reactive Trump.  The performance was virtuoso.
 
Now admittedly, some of us (myself included) enjoyed Reactive Trump.  We giggled at the insults.  We cheered the barbs.  Why?  Well, frankly, because we were angry.  Having endured decades of compromising, get-along Republicans, we were desperate for a brawler—someone who would actually fight back.  Enough Bush’s!  Enough McCains!  After decades of being mocked while our liberties eroded, we found Trump’s bruising of societal elites…exhilarating.  
 
Problem was, all this exhilaration only felt good to our base.  The other two thirds of America—the Middle and Far Left—saw a President fighting to make only one third happy.  Were they right?  No, but Trump’s reactive persona made it feel that way.  And feelings, my friends…vote.
 
None of this was new, as Barack Obama had the same struggles.  An activist President, Obama’s condescending depictions of those outside his base (bitter clingers, anyone?) convinced two thirds of the nation he was advancing one third’s agenda.  Once the smooth-talking, hope-peddling idealist, Obama had become a petulant child insulting anyone without a “Hope” t-shirt. 
 
And in the 2010 and 2014 midterms, his Party suffered.  Big time.
 
Political Reality 101: When two thirds think you speak for one third, your Party is doomed.  Just witness Reactive Trump’s results.  Across the board, poll after poll showed surging opposition in the two thirds, and a depleted one third.  In off-year elections and finally November, Republicans performed far below traditional win gaps versus Democrats—even 15-25 points worse.  When the final wave hit, the House was lost, and far worse, only 2 Senate seats were gained—barely—when the map should have guaranteed a 7-9 seat gain.  Just awful.
 
Does this mean Trump was the problem?  Did he need to go?  Not at all.  But Reactive Trump?  Yeah, that wasn’t working.  The Donald needed to be himself again.
 
Problem is, some of Trump’s supporters were so happy with him bashing critics, they convinced themselves this was the real Trump.  On one level, they had a point: Trump always had a fighter’s mentality, being a hard-nosed businessman from New York.  But the old Trump fought positively, mixing playful barbs and taunts (Little Marco, Crooked Hillary) with a constant flow of happy thoughts.  That Trump didn’t fight like some clod in a bar, flailing away and falling into punches.  He fought like Muhammed Ali, floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee.  Just ask Marco Rubio.  Or Jeb Bush.  Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, someone named John Kasich—all of them felt the blinding jabs.  Each of them were knocked off their games by Trump, not the other way around.
 
But we’re all human, aren’t we?  Think about it: When you endure long periods of unfair attacks, doesn’t it knock you off your game?  Don’t you start fixating and sounding paranoid?  Most everyone does.  And Donald Trump, being much less politician and much more human, was susceptible like any of us.  As the Left’s blitzkrieg wore on, Trump just wasn’t Trump anymore. 
 
Until Tuesday.
 
Suddenly, the Great Positive Salesman returned!  Gentle stories grabbed hearts, non-partisan praise raised eyebrows, and policy statements sounded far less demanding and far more promising for all Americans.  Somewhere, Marco Rubio looked up and said, “Yep.  That’s the guy who beat me.”
 
Like that great artist of the boxing ring, Muhammed Ali, Trump unleashed his art of the deal with American voters.  It worked.  Hearing him talk, Americans heard someone making the sale—flattering the customer, honoring the audience, praising the competition, then jabbing them—whatever it took.  This felt different.  This felt fresh, apolitical, and real.  Whereas Obama offered “hope” for social justice revenge, Trump offered hope for everyone.  Hearing him, we realized we’re too great not to have good jobs.
 
And just like Trump’s failed GOP opponents, the media was knocked off its game.  Flustered, leftwing talking heads read Trump’s smashing polls through gritted teeth, then stirred up any negativity they could find—or concoct.  It was embarrassing, and all I could do was smile.
 
“This is the Real Trump,” I thought.  “This is that Positive Salesman, the guy who’s so busy celebrating success for all Americans, he hasn’t time for paranoia.  This is a guy showing up at my door and selling me a vacuum cleaner when I already own three.”
 
“And best of all, this guy’s jabs carry more punch, hitting home like laser-guided missiles.  Last year’s Reactive Trump sounded like a target.  This guy sounds like a happy hunter, rooting out targets for all Americans to oppose.  Late term abortion?  Hey, we’re not monsters like Virginia’s governor.  A border wall?  It’s protection for all of us, not just rich elites in gated mansions.  Socialism?  Not in our country, baby.  This isn’t Venezuela; we’re winners here.”
 
And as the numbers show, two-thirds suddenly saw this as their President, not just mine.  Like I’ve said for a year, I don’t need Trump to make me feel good—he had me at "hello."  I need him to make them—two thirds of our country—feel good.
 
After all, when they feel good, the media feels bad—and that makes me feel reeeeeally good.

Donald Trump never needed to shut up or stop tweeting or anything else.  He just needed to set aside the doubters and be himself again.  And on Tuesday night, he did just that.
 
The results?  MAGA, baby.  Pure magic.  What a speech.
 
0 Comments

Colorado Conservatives: Are You Falling For Ground Game Fever?          By Andy Peth

1/27/2019

6 Comments

 
Picture
Do you have Ground Game Fever?
 
Many Colorado Conservatives have seen the Ground Game presentations—you know, the ones laying out how Democrats used well-funded ground games with multi-targeting and several-step touching of new voters in Colorado.  These all have something great and something bad: 
 
The “great” is how they recommend needed shifts in our ground game strategy, moving monies from less effective measures to more aggressively connecting with voters.  I agree with these.  Strongly.
 
The “bad” is how they completely neglect the context that made such measures succeed for Colorado Democrats.  Basically, these Ground Game preachers say, “If we just do what Democrats did, the market will embrace us as it did them.”  That, my friends, is preposterous—and dangerously naïve.
 
In truth, the Colorado market was wholly primed to accept the Democrat message.  Flooded with massive population shifts, our state exploded over the past couple decades with new voters—young, minority, or transplants from liberal states—ready to embrace leftist dogma.  Never have fields been more ripe for Democrat harvest.
 
So when well-funded Democrat groups approached these hordes with aggressive voter registration and targeted sales pitches at doorways, they were selling to a market primed to embrace them.  Seeing perfect expansion territory in Colorado, Democrats seized it. 
 
Here’s what they saw:  All the expanding voter demographics in Colorado had one thing in common--they were bathed in leftist dogma 24/7.  Think about it.  Young voters, single women voters, suburban women voters, minority voters—all these were preached one-sided messages from the moment they woke up to the moment their heads hit the pillow. 
 
They heard it through the Big 3: Academia, Media (especially sports media, by the way), and all forms of Entertainment.  Just look at each targeted demographic, then go to their schools, watch their preferred media (TV or online), and watch all their preferred forms of entertainment.  Morning, noon, and night, these demographics are bombarded with hard-left messaging, preparing these “fields” for harvesting by Democrats.
 
All the Dems had to do was spend big money and equip their troops.  The fields were ripe.  They just needed to send out harvesters.
 
And here’s another thing Democrat leaders knew:  Their Party recruits and rallies with RAGE.  This is why they used The Big 3 for convincing targeted voting groups to be angry at other groups.  They pushed anger at the wealthy.  They pushed anger at heterosexual men.  Anger at the military.  Anger at lawful gun owners.  White people.  Christians.  Oil companies.  Whoever.
 
It didn’t matter which groups Democrats cast as villains—they just needed villains.  Why?  Because no one votes Democrat unless they’re voting against some chosen villain (rich people, Christians, oil companies, men, etc.).  DEMOCRATS NEED PEOPLE CONVINCED THAT GOVERNMENT MUST PROTECT THEM FROM PERCEIVED THREATS.  This is why Democrats demonize whole groups.  They need voters angry and scared, and that is precisely what the Big 3 produced. 
 
Moreover, Colorado saw a population boom in all the most targeted demographics for this strategy.  And not only were the fields ripe for Democrat harvest, but they were tilled, seeded, watered, weeded, and in every way prepared for that harvest by the Big 3.  So when Democrats registered new voters or passed out invitations at campuses, they were harvesting trees bursting with fruit falling from branches.  When they approached suburban women or minority communities, they were picking from rows of corn ready to be plucked by leftwing harvesters.
 
Despite all this, “Ground Game” preachers now tell rightwing groups all we need to do is harvest the way Democrats do, and we’ll have the same results!  Worse yet, these “Ground Game” preachers are blaming their way to power in the Colorado Republican Party.  How?  Simple:  They detail all the effective ground game operations of Democrat groups, without mentioning the population shifts and Big 3 rage preparations making those ground games effective. 
 
They talk all harvest, and no preparing of the fields for harvest.
 
“We didn’t lose because of demographic shifts or messaging or Trump or anything else!” they insist.  “We lost because we got outworked!  We lost solely because Democrats used the better ground game!  If we just harvest like they do—aggressively connecting with new voters and targeting each voter’s data points—we’ll get the same results!  And our leaders are to blame for not doing this!”
 
Ridiculous.  Embarrassing.  While I heartily agree with their ground game strategies, their utter neglect of context will bring terrible results.
 
Folks, if we want to win back Colorado,  we must prepare the field before harvesting it.  We must completely change our message and approach to one resonating with today’s voters.  We must break through the Big 3’s dominance, using clear, impactful messaging that shows voters we’re the good guys and Democrats are the bad guys—and we must do it while lowering the very rage Democrats use to recruit.
 
Can this be done?  You bet!  But it won’t happen with enraged “Ground Game” preachers blaming their way to power with promises of harvesting fields we’ve never prepared.  We need to change the way Coloradoans see Conservatives and Republicans, and we can’t do this with rage and division in our own ranks.  Those things only feed the other side.
 
One more time:  WE MUST PREPARE THE FIELD BEFORE HARVESTING IT.  And while I think the “Ground Game” preachers have some great ideas on how to harvest, they offer nothing to prepare that harvest.  Nothing but blame.  Nothing but rage.  Nothing opening the mind of that young person or minority voter or single woman or suburban female executive.  Nothing at all.
 
Just numbers and stats, with no context and lots of anger.
 
Truth is, these Ground Game preachers aren’t changing the face of our Party.  They’re just shoving it in more faces of voters we haven’t prepared.  Folks, the greatest irony of Ground Game Fever…
 
…is that it never prepares the ground.
6 Comments

Choice And Abortion                            By Andy Peth

1/15/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
(The following is written from a Pro-Life position.  But even Republicans supporting a right to abortion should read this, for it helps to see political allies be effective in their messaging)
​
​Let’s play make believe.
 
Imagine if abortion supporters had never co-opted the term, Choice.  Instead, they just called for Reproductive Freedom, Women’s Medical Liberty—anything but Pro-Choice.  Had Democrats never co-opted Choice with abortion, what would we think of Republicans calling our Party “The Party of Choice,” while labeling Democrats “The Party of Control?”
 
I think we’d love it.  After all, people love choices, and Republicans offer far more choices than Democrats—far, far more.  So Choice should be our word, anyway.  And unlike Liberty, which conjures images of men in white wigs issuing demands, Choice is personal and contemporary.  It moves us from “Don’t take my liberties…and stay off my lawn!”  to “I want you to have more choices.”  
 
The fact is, Choice sells.
 
Better yet, Choice-Versus-Control puts Democrats in a defensive position.  Why?  Because nearly all Democrat initiatives are grounded in Control, and people hate being controlled.  Just listen to friends discuss micromanaging bosses, suffocating parents, HOA’s—see what I mean?  If we push a Choice-Versus-Control narrative, all Democrat legislation would come under that spotlight.   
Abortion: Our Biggest Roadblock
But back to reality.  Knowing the advantage Choice brings Republicans, Democrats co-opted our word with a single issue: Abortion.  It's incredible.  In a society that loves what we offer (Choice) and hates what our opponents offer (Control), we simply refuse to use the words.  With one brilliant maneuver, Democrats bullied us out of our best sales pitch.

I hear Republicans fret: "If we say we're for Choice, people will think we support Abortion!  Democrats will mock us for claiming to represent Choice--because of Abortion!  It's confusing, because...because...Abortion!  All is lost!  Run for your lives!  The meteor is coming!

Okay, I'm exaggerating...slightly.  But should we have conceded Choice so easily?  I don't think so.  In fact, conceding Choice has reframed all political debate in the Democrats' favor.  Not good, people.

Here's the truth: There is nothing Anti-Choice about the Pro-Life position.  NOTHING.   ​
Choice:  The Pro-Lifer’s Great Ally
Ironically, reclaiming Choice also opens minds in the Abortion debate.  Choice—the word we’ve come to fear—might well be our greatest ally.  Observe:
 
1.      We Can Disarm Anger by Embracing Choice
 
Steeped in resentment, Abortion supporters won’t often listen to Pro-Lifers.  They think we want to control them, so our first words must disarm that anger—not win a debate.  That’s why I lead by praising Choice and opposing Control.
 
“I’m Pro-Life, but I love the reason you’re Pro-Choice.  You don’t want the government telling a woman what to do with her body.  I agree.”
              
        Next, I share my Republican Choice Standard:
 
“I just don’t want one person’s choice taking away another person’s choice, so our only disagreement is on when another person is in play.”
 
        And finally, I use Choice to forge agreement: 
 
“And that’s just a question of science.  We can debate when life begins, but until then, why don’t we just agree we both care about people—women, babies, everyone—and we both support Choice.  Fair enough?”
 
Voila.  In seconds, Pro-Life is no longer Anti-Choice, and I’m the nice, reasonable person in a heated topic.  I’ve gone from bad guy to good guy—all because of Choice.
 
2.      If they’re open to more discussion, I can select from many points:
 
  • "Except for rape, the whole point of abortion is to erase consequences for choices freely made, right?  Two people chose to engage in behavior that might produce a pregnancy, and now they want the consequence erased.  That’s not Pro-Choice.  It’s Anti-Consequence.”
 
  • “In fact, if the unborn are allowed to grow, they’ll make thousands of choices—all of which are erased by the one choice of abortion.  Erasing thousands of choices with one choice is hardly Pro-Choice, right?”
 
  • “Pro-Life also isn’t Anti-Woman.  After all:
 
     1.  The most pro-abortion person isn’t the young woman who is pregnant; it’s the guy who got her pregnant.  She at least she feels some sense of nurture, while all he wants is escape. 
      2.  Besides, half the unborn aborted are female, right? 
      3.  And have you ever watched a Pro-Life demonstration?  It’s mostly women.  Why is that?”
 
  • “Which side is controlling?  Pro-Lifers only remove one choice they believe takes away someone else’s choice.  Meanwhile, Abortion supporters force Pro-Lifers to pay taxes toward tax-funded abortions and pro-abortion teaching in schools.  Regardless of personal beliefs, everyone’s forced to pay.  Who’s controlling whom?”
 
Naturally, I don’t just unload point after point.  But it’s good to be ready.
What About the Backlash?
​Still, many Republicans fear backlash if we say we’re for Choice—and this centers around Abortion.  They fear the mocking.  They fear having to explain how Choice and Pro-Life views work together. 
 
My response?  I think they’re missing the opportunity this backlash presents.
 
Right now, we’re losing millions of votes from people who simply equate Pro-Life with Anti-Choice and Anti-Women.  Millions and millions of votes.  And by not claiming Choice, we prevent the above discussion from ever happening—meaning we can’t shed the “Bad Guy” label.  We’re stuck.
 
Faced with a wall of single female voters assuming the worst, we’re paying a huge price for running from our own word.  We’re distrusted.  Unheard.  Worse yet, entirely disregarded.  At this point, we desperately need a discussion—even one beginning with backlash.  We need people talking about Choice and Republicans, because our silence on it leaves us as villains. 
 
Truth is, we Pro-Lifers make lots of great points, such as when the unborn have heartbeats or feel pain.  We rightly warn against women assuming abortion won’t affect them, and we back this up with statistics.  We’re good people caring about good people!  But if society thinks we’re against the thing society loves—Choice--then they won’t listen to our great points.  And that is what’s happening.  We’re a bunch of smart, loving people in a deaf, angry room.
 
Let me repeat that:  Avoiding Choice because of Abortion…leaves Republicans preaching to a deaf, angry room.
 
You know, I wish Democrats had never hijacked our word through twisting an issue like Abortion.  It was brilliant strategy—a game-changer.  Raised in Democrat circles, I know full well why they did it, and how they use it.  They actually claimed a gender.  Remarkable.
 
But now we can surprise people with simple rebranding.  Let’s just say we’re for Choice, and our opponents are for Control.  Then back it up.  And when they launch their Abortion-based backlash, we’ll not only open a discussion that has been closed for millions of voters, but we will win that discussion, person by person.
 
Why?  Because we are for Choice.  Democrats are for Control.  And truth, my friends, is on our side.
0 Comments

Which Line Do We Draw?                   By Andy Peth

12/10/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture


“Let’s have a new first party; a Republican Party raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels.  A banner instantly recognizable as standing for values which will not be compromised.”  

--Ronald Reagan​
Bold colors.  Instantly recognized.  Ever wonder why Republicans must draw this line, while Democrats don’t? 
 
Think about it.  Each election season, Democrats spend lots of time blurring lines—speaking of balanced budgets, religious freedoms, and of course, jobs, jobs, jobs (none of which they produce).  Mouthing these terms like salesmen mouthing, “Year End Savings,” they embrace pale pastels…
 
…except when calling Republicans bigoted, sexist homophobes who want the earth to burn.  And while it burns, we build lavish spaceships for escaping to a secret world called “Planet Rushy-Trumpy.”    
 
(I’m told Rushy-Trumpy is solely populated by male Trump voters and incredibly lifelike female pleasure-bots, who only say “Master,” “Yes”—usually not in that order—and “NRA”)
 
But I digress.
 
Point is, Democrats want blurred lines.  They like “evolving” moralities, “living” Constitutions, “open” borders, and “fluid” genders.  Even in 1975, Reagan knew pale pastels put the game on Democrat turf.
 
On that turf, voters can only follow whoever gives them more.  More what, you ask?  More anything.  Like more stuff paid for by other taxpayers.  But that’s stealing, you say?  No it isn’t, because we use majority votes!  That’s mob rule and looting, you say?  No it isn’t, because on this turf, we use evolving, living, open, and fluid definitions!  Stealing is “Government-guided generosity.”  Mobs are “Steering committees encouraging your generosity.”  Looting is “Celebrating your generosity—door to door!” 
 
And these torches we’re carrying?  “Natural lighting.”
 
When Republicans fail to draw clear lines, Democrats entice voters with “reasonable” demands:
 
“More, more, more!  Force businesses to pay my kid $15/hour without cutting staff or raising prices! 
“Force taxpayers to spend far more in subsidies on green energy than the same amount of energy from fossil fuels—then tell me we’re creating ‘green jobs!’  This makes me happy inside!”
“Force Conservatives to pay twice to keep their kids out of schools opposing Conservatism!  Conservatives can afford it—they have all the money!  Hollywood and Google told me so!  That’s why Conservatives can afford pleasure-bots!!!”
 
“I like me!  I don’t like them!  Give me their stuff, and tell me I deserve it!  Give me power over them, and call it justice!  I…WANT…MORE!!!”
 
You like tyranny?  Then sell pale pastels.  But if tyranny isn’t for you, try drawing a clear line.
 
And which line should we draw?  Well, first let’s see what lines to avoid.
 
    1.      Don’t use a person.
 
Many Conservatives today draw the line, “Are you for or against Trump?”  Hmmmm…  I’m for Trump, and I’ve called out many Never Trumpers.  But drawing our line with a person causes problems.
 
      a)      First, it isn’t what President Trump wants.  Though uber-confident, our President has repeatedly said it’s about us, not him. 
 
Unlike Obama, Trump wants loyalty, not worship.  There are no Greek columns with Trump; no schoolkids singing his glory, no posters proclaiming him as our “hope.”  Obama wanted America fundamentally transformed in his image. Trump just wants America to, well, win.
 
      b)     When we draw lines demanding people support “Our Guy,” they resent us.  Sure, we’ll rally our group.  But others tire of us, as we grade everyone by whether they’re for him or against him. This can make us sound like cultists.  It makes us sound weak.  Frankly, we sound gullible.   
 
      c)      People can fall.  Hey, no one’s perfect, and everyone makes mistakes opponents can cite. 
 
    2.      Don’t use an issue.
 
This is called “Single Issue Voting,” and I’ve heard it in so many ways: 
 
“I draw the line with guns.  Any limits with my freedoms, and I’m out!”
“I draw the line with abortion.”
“I draw the line with immigration and the Wall.”
“I draw the line with repealing Obamacare.”
 
Now understand, I mention these issues because they’re critical for me.  But when I make one issue the dividing line, I virtually guarantee my defeat. Why?  Because I’m employing a strategy that only works if no one else does it.   
 
Let’s say we line up twenty issues.  Then every Conservative picks a top one (or two or three), saying, “Here’s where I draw the line!”  If we each demand our issues take precedence, no candidate can unite us.  Doomed from the start, we’re overrun by Democrats recruiting with one thing—getting more.
 
Like I said, Single Issue Voting only works if no one else does it.  That’s bad strategy.
 
    3.      Don’t use a big list.
 
Some Republicans want another Contract with America.  “Tell people what we’re for, not just what we’re against!”
 
Well, yes…and no.
 
The Contract was awesome, and we certainly want clear priorities.  I’m all for that.  But don’t lead with it.  Why?  Because in today’s political climate, lengthy lists won’t break through.  
 
Think about it.  Our audience—the voters—doesn’t trust or hear us enough to focus on lists.  Worse yet, they’re encased in far-left dogma from the Big 3 Influencers of Public Opinion: Media, Academia, and Entertainment.  So, nothing will puncture that barrier except a single, clear message.  
 
If we lead with a list, all they’ll hear is noise—too many demands from a group they’re convinced are bigoted sexists burning the earth and fleeing to Planet Rushy-Trumpy. 
 
So those are three lines to avoid, but what should our line achieve?  What are the goals?
 
Simple. The line we draw must:
 
    1.      Expose the Democrats’ greatest fault—something they can’t stop doing. 
    2.      Promote our greatest strength—something Conservatives love.
    3.      Achieve these things in clear terms voters use and like.  In other words, don’t lead with terms like liberty, freedom, opportunity, or family values, since voters rarely think in these terms.
 
This is why I advocate drawing the line, Choice versus Control.
 
Democrats can’t stop controlling.  If we don’t like something, we don’t do it.  If they don’t like something, they ban it. 
 
If we drive slow, we use the right lane, allowing others to pass at their pace. If Democrats drive slow, they often use the left lane (I’m serious—read the bumper stickers). Or when possible, they group together, forming human blockades across all lanes. I envision them opening their windows and locking arms in solidarity.  Or, they’ll thrust their fists in the air, shouting, “Build this Wall!  Build this Wall!”
 
I hate driving behind these Democrats.  But again, I digress.
 
Even relativism is a control device, designed to remove standards to which we can be held.  “Evolving” moralities, “living” Constitutions, “open” borders, “fluid” genders—these all give control to the mob. 
 
Thus, branding Democrats with Control is a winner.  No one likes a micromanaging boss, right?  So, we draw a clear line showing voters that Democrat politicians are the boss they despise.  That’s easy.
 
As for Choice, this is a word everyone loves and uses—and it’s something Republicans love to give.  Sure, some of us are unsure with social issues, but my next article will show we love Choice on those, too.
 
For now, just know Choice is our product.  It is liberty and freedom in a more personal package.  People want it.  We can sell it.  And as I’ve mentioned before, the opening messages are easy:
 
“We’re for Choice, they’re for Control.”
“We want to control our own lives, not yours.”
“We support every choice that doesn’t take away someone else’s choice.  They impose choices they like on people they don’t.”
 
Voters respond much better to these opening lines than pushing our person, issue, or list.  And in a setting of pale pastels where people demand, “More, more, more!”, Choice versus Control reminds them of these realities:  Using government to steal is still stealing, using government to control is still controlling, and a mob of voters…
 
…is still a mob.
 
Speaking of Choice, we have one before us:  Either draw a clear line with Choice versus Control, or compete entirely on the Democrats’ home turf.
 
Reagan knew which way to go.  Do we?
0 Comments

Enough!  Republicans Must Become The Party of Choice            By Andy Peth

11/28/2018

19 Comments

 
Picture
Okay folks, that’s enough already.

Enough of the blame game.  Enough acting like things will turn around with more organization, more leadership, more Trump, less Trump, more marketing to women, minorities, young people, more, more…enough!

Don’t get me wrong, I love the ideas.  Millennial Outreach?  Yes, please!  Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives?  My heroes!  Leadership training?  Excellent!  In fact, there are too many fine initiatives to mention.  But reaching Colorado’s increasingly blue market requires one thing they all lack:

An open door.
​
And without that door, all our great initiatives won’t make a dent in Colorado.  They just won’t.  But that can change.
The Not-So-Great Wall
Let me describe a Wall.  No, not the Border Wall, but the Not-So-Great Wall between Republicans and Colorado’s voters:
 
1.      This is a blue state getting bluer.   Every trend has gone one direction for decades, and we’ve lost far too many customers (the voters).  We’re here; they’re over there.  And “there” is getting further away.
2.      It is far more difficult to win back lost customers than to get them in the first place.
3.      Our opponent—The Democrat Party—has its greatest strengths in the fastest growing demographics.
4.      Worse yet, we are largely walled out from these communities.  For instance, our women’s groups have fantastic messages—but how many suburban women hear them?
5.      Meanwhile, our opponent owns the Big 3 Influencers of public opinion:  Media, Academia, Entertainment.  Controlling the narrative, these Influencers drown us out.
6.      Our President has great strengths, but his message hasn’t played well in Colorado.  The polls overwhelmingly reflect this, especially among Colorado’s largest voting bloc—Unaffiliated voters.  
7.      Young people are turning out more, voting Democrat by huge margins.
 
I could go on, but do you see my point?  Things like better organization are great, but we can’t organize our way back into the hearts of Colorado voters.  Greater fundraising, smarter technology, bigger ground games—these good things won’t break through the Wall.  It’s far too big; too resistant to more, more, more.  That’s why I grimace when reading well-intentioned answers offered by some Conservatives.  They’re shooting BB’s at a tank; arrows at a meteor. 
 
So enough already.  Let’s get serious.
Opening A Door
​Okay, how do we break through this Wall?  How do we reach voters who don’t hear us, trust us, or want anything to do with us?  How do we spark a conversation it seems no one wants to have?
 
We do it with a single word everyone loves: Choice.  We must become The Party Of Choice.
 
Stay with me here.  Imagine what would happen if Colorado Republicans launched an all new message:
 
“We are The Party of Choice.  Democrats are The Party of Control.”
 
At first, some would scoff.  Others would laugh.  Still more would get angry, citing issues where they feel we don’t offer choice, such as abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana.
 
All this would be…awesome.  Think about it:
 
·        Those who never talk about us…would be talking about us!  Those who never listen to us…would be demanding answers!  Seizing the narrative, we would open a door.  We’d open it by reframing the debate.
·        This takes us from defense to offense.  Rather than play defense with denials—“But, but, we aren’t racist!  We aren’t sexist!”—we’d instead switch to offense.  “You bet we’re for Choice.  And we can prove it.”
·        We’d offer a simple, fresh message: “Here’s my politics:  I want to control my own life, not yours.  That’s it.”
·        When challenged—say, on abortion—we’d surprise people with a fresh standard:  “I support every choice that doesn’t take away someone else’s choice.  Don’t you?”
·        On issues where many Colorado voters despise us, we’d lower their anger: 
o   Abortion: “I’m pro-life, but I love the reason you’re pro-choice.  You don’t want the government telling a woman what she can do with her body.  I agree!  I just don’t want one person’s choice taking away another person’s choice, so our only disagreement is whether another person is in play.  We can debate the science if you want, but we already agree on one thing:  We both love people.”  (Can you just feel the anger dropping?)
o   Gay Marriage: “Marry who you want, but don’t tell a baker what product to sell, or a church what service to provide.  One person’s choice shouldn’t take away someone else’s.  Fair enough?”
o   If they bring up my group, the Christian Right: “Actually, Christianity is a Choice religion—there is no Christian Jihad.  Never did Jesus and the Apostles force unbelievers to live like believers, and I don’t want my beliefs to be your laws.  If you’re seeking a Control religion, might I recommend the Environmental Movement?”
 
·        On all other issues, the field immediately tilts in our favor:
o   Education: “I want to choose how my kids are taught, not control how other people’s kids are taught.  How about you?”
o   Gun Rights: “If a mother chooses to defend her kids, I won’t control how many bullets she carries.  That’s her call, not mine.”
o   Gun Rights: “I want law-abiding citizens as well-armed as the law-breakers who would harm them.  Shouldn’t the choice to obey laws be an advantage, not a disadvantage?”
o   Environment: “I want the cleanest environment you can afford to enjoy.  If you can’t afford it, how is that sustainable?  If you can’t enjoy it, what’s the point?  Government shouldn’t tell you what you can afford or enjoy.  That’s your choice.”
o   Energy: “Energy choices should serve the most people, not reward the most activists.”
o   Immigration: “How can I reward the choice to come here legally, if I don’t stop the choice to come here illegally?”
o   Immigration: “When people come here, I want America to be their home.  Homes are protected with walls and doors, not lawns and floors.  How do you choose to protect your home?”
o   General:  “Do you want the government making you live like me?  No?  Good!  But tell me, do you want the government making me live like you?  Do you crave power you fear in others?”
 
Challenge them.  Wake them.  Make no mistake, the question, “Who supports Choice or Control?” spurs discussions Democrats don’t want.  Why?  Because unlike politics as usual—which bores people—these discussions fascinate people, reminding them how no one likes to be controlled.  That’s political death for Democrats.
 
But if we don’t reframe the debate, all that remains is, “Which Party gives me more stuff?”  That’s political gold for Democrats.  It’s a closed door for us, and we’re the ones who closed it.
Why Not Use Other Words?
​Some Republicans would prefer we be the Party Of Liberty, or perhaps Freedom.  Hey, these are great words!  Unfortunately, they don’t sell—which is why Democrats used the abortion issue to co-opt “Choice.”  
 
And boy did it work.  Democrats are thanked, we’re resented, and we’re even afraid of our own word.
 
Meanwhile, when a Conservative says, “Liberty,” people envision old men in white wigs.  As for “Freedom,” this can be slowly eroded, leaving people unaware they don’t have it.  So Liberty and Freedom sound old or vague, while Choice sounds crisp, immediate, and personal—everyone freaks when a choice is taken.  After all, what motivates a teenager?  Losing “liberties” and “freedoms,” or losing the choice of which cellphone to use?
 
Please.  I’d rather come between a mother bear and her cub than a teen and her cellphone.
 
Of course, some Republicans prefer “Opportunity.”  But to many people, “Opportunity” sounds a lot like “Risk.” 
 
Here’s the best reason to use “Choice”:  Because Democrats don’t want us to.  They know our using that word provokes discussions where there are none.  It re-opens the debate; a debate they’ve closed. 
 
It opens a door.
 
Want to see Democrats yawn?  Then talk about “Liberty,” “Freedom,” and “Opportunity.”  Want to see them smile and gush talking points?  Then lead with policy positions—everything we’re “for.”  Want to see them point and laugh?  Then go on tirades about Hillary and the media—everything we’re “against.”
 
But if you want to see Democrats attack in panic, do something new:  Talk about Choice-Versus-Control.  Train your leaders in it.  Train your candidates in it.  Train the entire grassroots, and launch a fresh wave of ads.
 
In other words, Re…Frame…The…Debate!  Do this, and you’ll see why Democrats like the debate framed right where it is, thank you very much.  They want people talking rich-versus-poor, male-versus-female, black-versus-white…ANYTHING but Choice-Versus-Control.  They want people talking about who gives more stuff, not who gives more choices.
 
And ultimately, Democrats want us blaming our leadership, candidates, ground game—anything that won’t open a door in their Wall.  They don’t care if we win a few people with clever comments and targeted outreach, just so long as the vast majority tune us out.  While we think tiny, they think big.
 
So folks, it’s time to think bigger.  It’s time to reframe the entire debate.  It’s time to challenge Colorado voters with the clearest message they’ve ever heard.
 
“We are The Party of Choice.  They are The Party of Control.”
“We want to control our own lives, not yours.”
“We support every choice that doesn’t take away someone else’s choice.   They impose choices they like on people they don’t.”
 
Honestly, here’s our bigger message: “We’re not what you thought we were.  We’re the Good Guys.”
 
Now THAT is a Party I can sell to this market.  THAT is a debate we can win.  And THAT, my friends, is how you open a door through an impenetrable Wall.
 
Are you with me?
19 Comments

Royal Bloody Wedding     By Andy Peth

5/20/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Broadcast internationally, the Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle inspired millions.  There was splendor.  There was grace.  Befitting Meghan’s Hollywood roots, there was even an air of politically correct, social inclusion.  And throughout the pomp and celebration, there was a band of screaming Scots, thundering down a nearby hill.
 
Leading the charge was William Wallace—also known as Braveheart—whose steely eyes flashed rage borne of suffering.  His hand gripped a battle axe.  His face wore streaks of blue.  With mighty shouts of “Freedom!” and “Kill the Brits!”, Braveheart’s warriors tore through the massive wedding party like threshers through dry wheat.
 
Royalty fell.  Rock stars fell.  Cakes were overturned, champagne towers shattered, and heads rolled from rows of actors lacking their usual armed entourage.

But it was different for the women.  Hoisted kicking on shoulders, dozens of famed starlets were carried off, never to be seen again.  No longer would their fashions be admired at premieres, nor their speeches heard at protest marches.  Even Ms. Markle disappeared from view, lugged away by some nondescript savage who muttered, “Aye, this one’ll do…”
 
It was, in the end, a slaughter.
 
And here we are.  Prince Harry stands bewildered, alone.  Approaching him through rows of now empty seats is Braveheart, followed by a group of warriors.  Sizing up the young prince, Braveheart  stops a few feet away, lowers his axe to the ground…
 
…and speaks.
 
Braveheart:  Ah’m here ta discuss yer terms, Laddy.
 
Harry:  My terms?
 
Braveheart:  Aye, yer terms!  Of unconditional surrender!  (employing an exaggerated, rolling “R”)  Rrrrright, men?!
 
The Men:  Aye!  Aye!  What he said!  Aye!
 
Harry:  But…doesn’t “unconditional” mean there are no terms?
(Braveheart huddles with his men for several minutes of intense debate.  At long last, he again faces Harry)
Braveheart:  Yer a shrrrrewd one, Laddie!  But I shan’t be thrrrrrown by yer trrrrrrickery!
 
The Men:  Aye!  Aye!  What he said!  Aye!
 
Harry:  Stop calling me Laddie!  And how did you get in here?!  Wasn’t there security out front?
 
Braveheart:  Aye, Laddie!  But they just stood at the gate—still as statues, they were!  Oh, we charged at ‘em several times, trrrryin’ ta get a rrrrrise outta ‘em, but nary a one would budge!  So we took a few selfies with ‘em, and rrrresumed our attack!
 
Harry:  So no one fought back, but you attacked anyway?  You just murdered my guests!
 
The Men:  Aye!  Aye!  What he said!  Aye!
 
Braveheart:  Not now, lads! 
 
Harry:  Why commit such atrocities?!  What did I ever do to you?!
 
Braveheart: Do ya know nothin’ of history, Laddie?  Nothin’ of what ya’ve done?  (Looking dramatically at the sky)  Ya can take our land!  Ya can take our women!  But--
 
Harry:  We’ve taken none of your women!
 
Braveheart:  Would ya like ta?  They’re not in demand!  Ah suspect it’s the beards--
 
Harry:  It’s my wedding day, you savage!  I brought my own woman!
 
Braveheart:  Offer still stands, Laddie.
 
Harry:  No!  And stop calling me Laddie!
 
Braveheart:  We got plenty ta spare!  We keep ‘em in the countryside, beards an’ all--
 
Harry:  —I said I don’t want--
 
Braveheart:  —far from any, ya know, rrrrreflective surfaces--
 
Harry:  —please stop talking--
 
Braveheart:  —let’s just say those aren’t trrrolls livin’ under our brrrridges, Laddie--
 
Harry:  Will you shut up?!  And I’m not Laddie!
 
Braveheart:  Ahhh…PRRRRRINCE Laddie!
 
The Men:  Aye!  Aye!  What he said!  Aye!
 
Harry:  SHUT UP!  You’ve murdered half the wedding party, and taken the rest for God knows what!
 
Braveheart:  Ya had it comin’!  Yer always opprrrrressin’ us!
 
The Men:  Aye!  Opprrrrressin’ us!
 
Braveheart:  Ya take our lives!
 
The Men:  Aye!
 
Braveheart:  Ya take our land!
 
The Men:  Aye!
 
Braveheart:  Yer bakeries won’t make our weddin’ cakes!
 
The Men:  Aye!
 
Harry:  Wedding cakes?
 
Braveheart:  The ones with figurines wearin’ kilts and playin’ the pipes!
 
The Men:  Aye!  Aye!  What he said!  Aye!  Burn the witch!
 
Harry:  Burn the what?
 
Braveheart:  Yer day a’ rrrrreckonin’ be at hand, ya filthy noble!
 
The Men:  Aye!
 
Harry:  Noble?  None of this makes any sense!  Why attack after centuries of peace?  Why today?  And why are two of your men carrying a rowboat?
 
Braveheart:  That be our Navy!
 
The Men:  Aye!
 
Harry:  And the one throwing paper airplanes is…your Air Force?
 
Braveheart:  Pay no attention ta him!  He just follows us arrrround.
 
Harry:  I can’t take much more of this.
 
Braveheart:  Ha!  Ya bloody English ‘ave no stomach fer battle!
 
Harry:  What battle?!  You just stormed in here wearing those ridiculous skirts, killing unarmed guests!
 
Braveheart:  Are ya makin’ fun of our battle armor, Laddie?
 
Harry:  MY NAME IS NOT LADDIE! 
 
Braveheart:  PRRRRRINCE Laddie!
 
The Men:  Aye!  Aye!  What he--
 
Harry:  SHUT UP!  Look, if saying “skirts” instead of “kilts” offends you, I take it back!  Anything!
 
Braveheart:  Well trrrrruth be told, we were outta prrrroper battle kilts--
 
Harry:  I don’t care!
 
Braveheart:  —so we bought these skirts at Kohl’s--
 
The Men:  Aye!  Aye!  At Kohl’s!  Aye!
 
Harry:  I said I don't care!
 
Braveheart:  —luckily, one of the men’s lasses had a 30% off coupon--
 
Harry:  Are you even listening?
 
Braveheart:  —so we combined trips, as the little missus needed ta buy a shavin’ kit--
 
Harry:  WILL YOU PLEASE STOP TALKING?!   I’LL GIVE YOU WHATEVER YOU WANT!
 
Braveheart:  Ya’ll meet my demands, then? 
 
Harry:  YOU HAVEN’T MADE ANY DEMANDS!
 
Braveheart:  Ah clearly said ya can take our--
 
Harry:  —I DON’T WANT YOUR BEARDED WOMEN!! 
 
Braveheart:  Well then, the prrrrrice just went up!
 
Harry:  Please!  I’ll give you land!  A tenth of the kingdom! 
 
Braveheart:  Does that still include India?
 
Harry:  I don’t know!  Maybe!  Why not?! 
 
Braveheart:  Good!  We need a prrrrroper port fer our Navy!
(Braveheart gestures to the two men who have set the rowboat on the ground.  One is posed up front like Washington crossing the Delaware, while the other is rowing furiously in the back)
Man in Front:  Faster, Scottie!  We need more power!
 
Man in Back:  Ah’m givin’ it all ah got, Captain!  SHE JUST…CAN’T…TAKE…NA’ MORE!!
(Again, Braveheart addresses Harry)
Braveheart:  India takes care o’ them lads, but have ya got anythin’ closer ta home?
 
Harry:  I’ll throw in Ireland, okay?!  You can have Ireland!
 
Braveheart:  Ireland, eh?
 
Harry:  Yes!  Yes!  We’ll throw all the Irish out--
 
The Men:  Aye!
 
Harry:  —as soon as they sober up--
 
The Men:  Aye!
 
Harry:  —until then, just sweep around them!
 
Braveheart:  Alrrrrright!  Ireland will do!  But ah gets ta rename it!  Somethin’ snappy!  Like…like…Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr--
 
Harry:  Yes?
 
Braveheart:  —rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr--
 
Harry:  —I’m sorry, are you stuck?--
 
Braveheart:  —rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr--
(Harry slaps him on the back)
Braveheart:  —rrrRhode Ireland!  Ah gets ta call it Rrrrrhode Ireland!
 
The Men:  Aye!  Aye!  What he said!  Aye!  Burn the witch!  Shop at Kohl’s!  Aye!
(Harry’s head is buried in his hands)
Harry:  Fine…fine…just please, return my bride.
 
Braveheart:  Trrrruth be told, Laddie, ah dinna know where she went…
(Miles away, we see the man who carried off Meghan Markle.  Her head is down, as he yells and throws a plate of food out the window)
Man:  Arrrgh!  Ya call that haggis?  Go grrrrrab me clubs and carry ‘em whilst ah plays me a few holes!  Then go ta yer brrrrridge!!  Arrrgh!!
0 Comments

Defending Trump With Perspective       By Andy Peth

8/9/2017

2 Comments

 
Picture
You know what I like most about President Trump?
 
It’s not him enforcing immigration law as…well, you know…the law.  It’s not him treating terror-sponsoring nations as greater threats than American coal miners.  And it’s not even Judge Gorsich, that human barrier to the lawless Supreme Coven envisioned by Obama and Clinton.
 
What I love most is Trump’s simple, underlying theme, which is, “Relax.”  In other words:
 
·        Stop measuring every word and phrase.  Be yourself. 
·        Stop blaming America for all the world’s ills.  Love your country. 
·        Stop demanding total wins in every deal.  Negotiate.
·        Stop hiding in safe spaces.  Listen, learn, and grow.
·        Above all, stop telling others what they must earn, pay, sell, believe, say on campus, subsidize in healthcare, or justify with mountains of government paperwork.  Control your life, not theirs.
 
Trump wants America enjoyed.  That’s right; it is no longer a sin to like this place.  So don’t be offended by every stray word.  Don’t label disagreement as “hate.”  Breathe in, exhale, repeat, and relax. 
 
Man, I love Trump’s America.
 
And yet, Trump doesn’t always make life relaxing, right?  Riled by media bias, our President fights back, often leaving us debating tweets rather than advancing our agenda.
 
This problem intensifies in my home Arapahoe County, where Trump lost by 13.8%.  Like every president, Trump’s style plays better in some places than others (just ask Rust Belt Democrats how they feel about Obama…).  It’s inevitable.  Here in Arapahoe, people with concerns want to be heard—taken seriously.  Until we do this, they can’t “relax.”
 
So...okay…how do we help these people relax when they’re hyperventilating over Trump? 
 
Answer:  We share perspective.
 
If people get frustrated by our President’s latest comment, tweet, or perceived “scandal,” they’ll fixate, heaping importance on that issue.  Our job?  Broaden their scope.  Put their eyes back on the forest, not the one tree that has them angry.
 
Step 1:  Affirm.  Rushing from their complaints—changing subjects too quickly—is a big mistake.  For instance, if we say, “What Americans really care about is how our President is creating jobs,” people hear, “Your concern is stupid, and I’m uncomfortable discussing it.”
 
Remember, they’re fixated on one tree.  They’re mad.  So before they’ll see the forest, they must feel affirmed for their one concern—lest they dig in and fixate even more:
 
·        They think Trump said something offensive?  Say, “You like a more respectful tone?  Me too.”
·        They think Trump is hiding facts?  Say, “Hey, we all want more transparency.  I respect that.”
 
Notice we’re not agreeing with their concerns.  We’re just taking their best motives (like desiring respect and transparency), and affirming them.  Is this lying, or manipulation?  Not at all; we really do admire those traits.  And by affirming their motives, we create in them an instant release.  Now they’ve been heard.  Now they’ll cling less.  Now they’ll hear more.
 
Now we can talk about the forest.
 
Step 2:  Broaden.
 
So what is that forest?  Well, it can be a lot of things.  For instance, if someone fixates on a Trump comment, I might explain that tree in the context of Trump’s whole statement or life’s work.
 
Here’s a common example:  Trump’s most explosive quote was, “Grab ‘em by the p----.”  He was referring to beautiful women, and it was a vulgar comment.  Critics still mention this to me.
 
So what do I say?  Simple.  I affirm their concerns, then broaden their view to the wider context:
 
1.      (Affirmation)  I’m glad you don’t want women spoken of that way.  It’s wrong.
2.      (Context of Trump’s life)  But that comment was made in 2005, when Trump was supporting Democrats.  I’m more interested in what he says today, supporting my Party.
3.      (Context of statement)  And even back then, he was talking hypothetically, referring to how some women will allow a star to do anything.
4.      (More context of Trump’s life)  Here’s the bottom line:  Is there any evidence our President is grabbing women?  Of course not.  While Clinton spent 8 years with a “Do Not Disturb” sign on the Oval Office, Trump has been a perfect gentleman.  Let’s keep perspective here:  Trump’s comment didn't foretell how he’d act as President.
5.      (Challenge them to see the forest)  So let me ask you this:  If someone keeps harping on comments like that, do they want you focused on things that affect you, or things that don’t?  Are they trying to serve your needs, or use your emotions? 
 
No, you don’t have to say all that; choose what works best.  But do you see how you’ve turned a problem (the tree) into an advantage (the forest)?  Better yet, you’ve made opponents look bad. 
 
Another way to broaden their vision is by mentioning the even bigger forest.  For instance (I’m talking to the upset person now), you might not like Trump’s latest tweet, but…
 
…we’re $20 Trillion in debt that Trump never started.  Is a tweet affecting you this much?
…Obama had the first 8-year presidency without a single year of 3% growth.  The number of people on public assistance skyrocketed.  Does a tweet affect you that much?
…illegal border crossings dropped 70% after Trump took office.  Does a tweet mean that much?
 
Keep in mind, however, that bigger forests sound demeaning unless we first affirm the listener’s fixation.  Start by affirming their tree, then broaden their vision to the forest—no shortcuts.
 
One last forest view is the slanted vision they’re receiving of Trump’s presidency—the media bias.  In other words, before getting too upset about over the latest tree, look at the media pushing it.
 
Suppose someone fixates on Trump “colluding with Russia to steal the election.”  Yes, it’s ludicrous, but in a county where Trump lost by 13.8%, it’s important we affirm first, then broaden:
 
1.      (Affirmation)  You want fair elections, and you’re worried Trump got outside help.  Fair enough.
2.      (Context of Media Bias)  But if you want fairness, then you also want these stories presented fairly.  Problem is, 96% of the money donated by media members in the 2016 Presidential Election went to Hillary Clinton.  So you’re hearing this story from a 24-1 bias.
http://time.com/money/4533729/hillary-clinton-journalist-campaign-donations/
3.      (Challenge them to see the forest)  Would you want a 24-1 bias reporting on you?
4.      (Give examples of trees they aren’t seeing)  Check out what you’re missing.  Not only is there still no evidence of collusion, but that’s with no cover-up.  No smashed cellphones, no bleached hard drives, no 33,000 deleted emails—all the intel is open.  Also, Trump’s actions as President have been decidedly bad for Russia.  Are you hearing all this from the 24-1?
 
Conclusion
 
I think we’re still dealing with aftereffects of the Obama years, which left Americans on edge.  Face it, President Obama made people tense.  His general message (I’m paraphrasing) was, “These folks don’t trust those who don’t look like them,” or “America has been arrogant,” or “Republicans gotta sit in the back seat” or whatever.  Driven by his radical tutelage, Obama pit Americans against each other and against their own country.  No longer were we good, hard-working people.  We were bitter clingers. 
 
What a miserable 8 years.
 
Trump wants that changed.  He wants people relaxing, looking at results affecting them, not exaggerated stories that don’t.  He wants them working together again.  And we can help.
 
Every day, we interact with concerned citizens—good people who have been programmed to fixate on lone trees rather than enjoy the forest.  With just a few words, we can lift their concerns.  After just a few words, they’ll stop making mountains out of molehills, and instead “Make America Great Again.”
 
So affirm them.  Broaden them.  Free them. 
 
Addressing their concerns with honest perspective, we can help them all relax.
2 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Author

    Archives

    August 2019
    June 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    May 2018
    August 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    November 2011

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly