comMITTed to Romney!

Those who have read my blog posts in the past, know that I have attributed most of Governor Romney’s second place losses to religious bigotry. I have never said there were no other reasons, however, without relgious bigotry, I am 100% convinced that Governor Romney would today be the Republican nominee. By the way, I hold no malice toward anybody or any group of people for that position. It is now simply an historic fact.

However, I am disturbed by those evangelicals who are attempting to re-write history. This article is but one example. I recommend you read it and leave a comment as I did. If you choose to leave a comment, please reply with facts and not emotion.

THE REASON MITT LOST by Adam Graham

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

I just saw a ticker on TV that said, quoting Mike Huckabee:

“Why do they say that Huckabee is a spoiler to Mitt Romney? Why don’t they say that Mitt Romney is a spoiler to Mike Huckabee?”

Mike, here is why:

In Florida, you only got 4% of the non-evangelical vote, and of all the evangelicals you court, you only got 29% of their votes. Your Florida results were totally in line with the prior states’ voting. As an identity-candidate, what other function does your candidacy serve besides that of a spoiler? Of course you know you can never win with less than 10% of all non-evangelical votes!

Contrast this slice with Romney’s results: 29% of all evangelicals’ votes and 34% of all non-evangelicals’ votes. Oh, and Mike, this just in from the Maine Caucuses:

1. Mitt Romney 53% of the Vote
2. John McCain took 22%
3. Ron Paul came in at 19%
4. Mike Huckabee at 5%

Indeed, you hope to be a spoiler, and a cunning one at that.

NOTE TO ALL ROMNEY SUPPORTERS: You can make a big difference in the next few days. Click on the title of this blog post, copy the browser address (URL) above, and paste the address into an email message. Then, with your own supporting message, email it out to as many people as you can in your email address book (don’t forget to click on the title first). You may also want to include these two links:

Evangelicals for Mitt

Article VI Blog

Never, never, never underestimate the viral, synergistic power of grassroots determination. We can make it happen for Governor Romney.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

A few of our readers have wondered how many people actually visit this site that are not already in Governor Romney’s corner. Let me say first that traffic to this site has tripled in the last six weeks and it is increasing. Second, on a given day, between 20% and 40% of our visitors are referred to the site from search engines like Google, Yahoo, etc. (common search words result in a 3rd or 4th place ranking on the first page — higher than any other unofficial Romney site). These do not include the click-throughs from private emails in which “newbies” are following a private referral. So, a very high number of people new to Romney visit the site every day.

This is a brief comment left today at a post I wrote October 30, 2007 (“Mitt Romney as Christian”):

by Richard Ciara:

Romney is born in the likeness of His [Christ's] death raised to walk in newness of life is all I need to know about Mitt Romney. Huckabee whom I know personally should be ashamed of himself by thinking only his upbringing as a Southern Baptist somehow conflicts with Romney’s Mormonism. Both good men and Christians. Huckabee can not win but he could help a Christian brother out in Romney if he could get his head up and do some serious study between now and super Tuesday’s election on Romney’s Mormonism. Nobody is trying to steal converts from Mike’s church for Romney’s church here.

I believe Richard. Those who have read comments on this site in the last few weeks can attest that many wonderful non-denomination Christians and those of various denominations are ardent supporters of Governor Romney. Of all evangelical voters, Mr. Huckabee gets at most 35% of the vote in each primary (he won 4% of the non-evangelicals in Florida). In my comment back to Richard in the original post, I asked him to call Governor Huckabee and reason with him. This may be naive on my part, as I do strongly believe that Mr. Huckabee does not really have the best interest of America in mind, and for whatever unknown reason, wants John McCain to be the nominee.

Richard, since you just sent your comment today to my October post above, I presume you will see this post. Please monitor the comments of this post and use your best judgment and contact Gov. Huckabee, if you can, and reason with him. This I can tell you without hesitation: An evangelical candidate named George W. Bush received the vast majority of all Mormon votes when he ran against Gore (GWB lost the popular vote). Without their support and campaigning and votes, we would have Al Gore as President. Had the Mormons viewed an evangelical candidate for President the way many Huckabee supporters view a Mormon candidate today, both Bush I and Bush II would have struggled to become President and could easily have lost. If John McCain is ultimately nominated, it will be a direct result of Mike Huckabee’s cunning.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

By Amanda Earnest

As an avid Mitt Romney fan and supporter, I regularly participate in the Romney campaign’s “Call at Home” program. I’ve “called from home” many different states and have spent hours on the phone with my fellow republicans over the past few weeks, volunteering my time and energy while my baby is napping, to helping Mitt win the GOP nomination. Why? Because I care about the world my kids grow up in; I care about the world I raise them in. My hope for the future is bright for my family and for my children, but today, that hope was deeply (albeit briefly) halted.

The phone system you dial into with this program makes these calls automatically. You stay on the line while the system dials numbers over and over again, until a person actually picks up. At that time, the person’s name and location shows up on the screen.

“Hi there! Is David available?”
“Yes, this is David.”
“Hey David, my name’s Amanda and I’m volunteering on behalf of Governor Mitt Romney today. . .”
My sentence is inturrupted.
“Mitt Romney!? There’s no way I’m voting for him! He’s a Mormon! I have a personal problem with the idea of putting a Mormon in the White house. I’m a Huckabee man.”

After all the calls I’ve made and hours I’ve spent on the phone with people, I have never had this happen. I was a bit taken aback. Obviously not wanting to immediately disclose that I too was “a Mormon” to this man who obviously was not happy with the idea, I politely said,

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).

Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.

What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.

In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.

Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?

[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]

In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?

White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?

Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?

As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.

My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?

My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?

So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?

I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.

~ Vic

[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.

.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Have you ever wondered why so many evangelical voters are supporting Governor Romney? The writers at the following site are all either evangelicals (5) or Catholic (1). Their reasoning is awesome. Their writing is even better:

Why We Support Governor Romney

After reading their “why” statement, click on “Home” or one of the author’s names to read of their profile.

Just below is the photograph of Nancy French (co-founder) and Charles Mitchell (one of the authors). Both attended the Faith in America speech last month in Texas. Charles is my favorite writer on that site.
.

.
.
~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

In the last month, traffic to this blog site has doubled, more or less. To all of you who have visited this site, THANK YOU! And to all those who contribute as writers, THANK YOU.

For a couple of weeks now, I have been thinking of all the new visitors coming to the site to learn about Governor Romney. Many of us have been studying him for well over a year and we know all about him, his life, his career, his family.

But many of you are new to Gov. Romney and know nothing about him. His speech last month in College Station, Texas was a turning point in his campaign for the presidency, much as a similar speech was for JFK in 1960. Arguably, this speech by Gov. Romney will go down in history as one of the great statesman speeches of all time in this great nation of America. Indeed, many political experts and pundits, including Chris Matthews opined that this speech was the single best political speech they had heard in decades.

I still run into supporters of Governor Romney who still have never heard this speech. This speech is worth the time it takes to watch it. Please do if you have not seen it yet.

I was fortunate to attend this speech. It was an event I will never forget. It was a deeply emotional speech; emotions I observed among many not of the faith of Gov. Romney.
.
.

.
.
~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Some pictures are worth more than a thousand words!

Is it not true that, as Americans, just about every person alive who can vote would not hesitate one second (so they say) to vote for a black man or a woman for President? That this country has progressed over the decades to the point where racial bigotry and gender discrimination are considered relics of the past? We know that both forms of bigotry still exist, but to a much smaller degree than in years past. And yet, religious intolerance, one of the great evils that drove people to found this nation, is still the most conspicuous, insidious, and unspeakable forms of bigotry that pervades this nation!

If you don’t believe me, get a copy of ARTICLE VI — The Movie and tell me I am wrong.

There are still millions in this great nation who are religious bigots beyond comprehension — sorry to say.
.
.

Artwork by Michael Ramirez — Courtesy of IBD Editorials

Share on Facebook

Share This

This is the kind of stuff that lost it for Romney in South Carolina. Basically, in my honest to goodness opinion Romney got “McCained”. Like McCain in 2000, the whisper campaign and the out and out bigotry is what lost it for him this go round. I heard in an interview on MSNBC or CNN weeks ago from an evangelical leader who point blank said, “If it were not for Romney’s Mormon faith he’d be a shoo in for the Republican Nomination”. (I’ll look for that video again so I can play it). But, I don’t see how it could be anything else. Keeping in mind that the two most important issues to SC voters according to exit polling was the economy and illegal immigration, now think long and hard to yourself…How on earth is John McCain the strongest candidate on either of those two issues.

Share on Facebook

Share This

HT: Phil Kenny

From: Vanderbilt University.

Bias against Mitt Romney’s religion is one of the reasons that the tag “flip-flopper” sticks with the former Massachusetts governor but not his Republican opponents, according to Vanderbilt political scientist John Geer. “There is no question that Romney has changed his positions on some issues, but so have some of the other candidates,” Geer said. “Why does the label stick to Romney but not his opponents? At least some of the answer lies in Romney’s Mormon beliefs.”

Geer and colleagues Brett Benson of Vanderbilt and Jennifer Merolla of Claremont Graduate University designed an Internet survey to assess bias against Mormons, how best to combat it and its potential impact on the nomination process and general election campaign.

“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Benson said. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.

The poll, which was conducted by Polimetrix, included an oversample of Southern Evangelicals that Geer said measured bias with far more precision than previous efforts. The survey shows that 50 percent of conservative Evangelicals evaluate a moderate Christian candidate more positively than a conservative Mormon candidate.

The study’s findings suggest that criticizing Romney for flip-flopping is an effective campaign strategy because it sticks with two different groups: those who are genuinely concerned about Romney’s shifts on certain issues and those who use the label as cover for the fact that they do not want to vote for a Mormon for president.

“As the campaign continues to unfold, these data become increasingly relevant as the Republicans choose a presidential nominee,” Geer said.

Media Contact: Ann Marie Deer Owens, (615) 322-NEWS
annmarie.owens@vanderbilt.edu

Share on Facebook

Share This

Attention Everyone That’s NOT An Evangelical As Well

Maybe you didn’t get the memo, but you are not interviewing for Pastor of the United States of America, it’s P_R_E_S_I_D_E_N_T!!! You are the most alienating and isolating Presidential Candidate ever to run for Office. Jimmy Carter was better than you, and that’s really saying something. It’s also hysterical that you’re running in the Republican Party Primary because you’re far from being a Republican. You’d fit so much more nicely as a Pro-Life Democrat. Besides that one issue you and Clinton are almost replicas of each other, all the way down to the music playing during the campaign. One major difference though is that Bill Clinton actually didn’t go and preach sermons in church’s and take paybacks for them. He also didn’t gather Pastors together to “Take This Nation Back for Christ” while as a leader who represented all faiths. So, in that regard Bill Clinton is better than you. Not to mention your absolute bigotry towards Mormons and Catholics. You are not God Mr. Huckabee, and God does not favor you for President, although I’m sure that that’s hard to believe given your “holier than thou” attitude when it comes to this campaign.

—–

To people of all faiths:

We need to “Take This Nation Back From Bigots Like Mike Huckabee”. While Mike Huckabee is strumming his guitar and giving sermons in church’s Governor Romney is talking the issues that matter most to this country. See: Huckabee talks church; Romney talks cars. We need a leader who respects people no matter what their faith is, and doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve, and that leader is Mitt Romney.

Please Help Out This Effort by Donating Now. If we rest on our laurels too long it may be too late, and can you imagine waking up on the morning of January 21st the day after a bigot was elected our President? People think we have problems with George W. Bush on a world stage. Just imagine how a Huckabee Presidency would be received.

Share on Facebook

Share This

THANK YOU to reader NevadaGirl for pointing me to this article. The entire article is outstanding and rather than quote the whole thing in this post, I recommend you click through and read the article at the Townhall blog. This is one of the best articles I have read in a long time about the state of the presidential race today.  It does not address the whole whisper campaign that is preventing the evangelical lemmings from using their heads; it just tells them they better start using their minds or they will lose clout altogether; and the election.

Evangelicals thumbing their nose at the GOP — Friday, January 11, 2008 11:42 AM

Fortunately, I honestly believe that most Americans who identify as evangelicals, will use their minds and not just fall in line with Huckabee in the traditional Democrat “identity politics” way.    Evangelicals were burned for supporting Carter.     In my opinion, they will be severely impacted if they support Huckabee simply because they have the same religion.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Governor Romney has his hands full in Michigan for sure. It will be an uphill battle there. However, I am confident he can make it happen there. I also have the confidence that the people of Michigan are thinking people and most are not lemmings.

Rush Limbaugh is not a talk show host I ever hear because of work constraints, but I have been told he refers to Huckabee supporters as the typical Democrat “identity voter” (lemming) — voters who vote for someone because they are a woman or because they are African American, evangelical, etc. It is just amazing that there so many lemmings in this nation.

So pro-Huckabee organizers say they are focusing their entire effort on turning out evangelical church goers. They plan to call every evangelical pastor in the state over the next few days. Those ministers can’t endorse any candidate from the pulpit — but they can tell their parishioners that “it’s their Christian duty,” to turn out on primary day, said Glenn. “And we know who they’ll be voting for.”

To help drive that message home, thousands of volunteers will be dropping leaflets and waving signs in church parking lots across Michigan this Sunday. Glenn says there will also be several news conferences across the state through the January 15 vote featuring groups of pastors announcing their personal support for Huckabee, an organized wave of callers into Michigan’s Christian radio stations, and phone trees targeting the state’s largest churches from within.

Huckabee sows seeds to steal Michigan from Romney — By Rebecca Sinderbrand — CNN Washington Bureau

Keep in mind that in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Governor Romney still got a large number of evangelicals to vote for him. Obviously, having all the preachers and Democrats in Michigan engaged in a major whisper campaign is a formidable obstacle for Governor Romney.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hugh Hewitt is the Executive Producer of a new documentary, the trailer of which you may have seen a few weeks ago. The first time I saw the trailer was December 6th. Well, it is finally premiering nationwide (see other locations by clicking CONTINUE READING at the bottom of this post)

Want to attend the premiere? For free? This post is intended promote the film in the Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside metropolitan areas. See details and RSVP information below the poster of the film.

The date of the California premiere is Monday, January 14, 2008 — Newport Beach, CA

Check-in Begins at 6:00 p.m. — Show Time is 7:00 p.m.

— See trailer and RSVP details below —

Hugh Hewitt will be at this showing next Monday. I plan to attend with my wife (she knows I like a cheap date!). This afternoon (1/10), I was told the theater hold about 500 people and they have received 200 RSVPs.

Southern California Premiere:

Regency Lido Theatre
3459 Via Lido
Newport Beach, CA 92651

RSVP Required by telephone (M-F, 8-5): 949-296-1520 or via email: rsvpoc@outsideeyes.com

Information: Click here —–> ABOUT THE MOVIE

Watch the Trailer: Click here ——-> TRAILER

This one time viewing in California, next Monday, is free of charge (in fact, all premiere locations are free).

OTHER PREMIERE LOCATIONS: The film is also being shown in these cities on various dates: New York, Atlanta, Washington, DC, Shreveport, and Salt Lake City. For more information for these cities, click CONTINUE READING just below.

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Many of us here would argue that Romney’s ads have been comparison advertisements and not negative, but the media and many voters have felt otherwise. Calling what has been done negative was often brought up at the last debate. Romney needs to contrast his skills and policy positions without the appearance of “going negative”.

A former Brownback supporter, now a Romney supporter holds this view:

But the Romney campaign has made some critical mistakes and absolutely has to turn some things around. It is critical that Romney’s people realize that Iowa was not about Evangelicals, it was about the kind of campaign that they have run. Please hear this, someone in the Romney campaign: people start from a position of being skeptical of position changes. It makes them really angry when they perceive that someone who has changed positions recently is attacking someone else for the position that they used to hold. In other words… your man has a resume on which to run, please stop unloading on every other candidate for every deviation from doctrinaire conservatism, when you yourself previously suffered from the same flaws. This is just a harsh fact of life: Huckabee is in a position to throw stones on life issues, you aren’t. Tom Tancredo was in a position to throw stones on immigration, you aren’t. People feel like you’re insulting their intelligence when you do this sort of stuff, and in so doing, you’ve made so many Republicans angry with you that I take constant crap from various quarters just for supporting you. Stop in the hopes that it’s not too late.

You may agree with this or not, but there are many conservatives that could go Romney’s way that have expressed similar views on other sites. Here are my two cents on “How To” do contrast advertising without appearing to be negative, or falling into other conservatives’ mental trap of hypocritical criticisms. It is important to point out differences between candidates without turning off people that hate “negative campaigning”. In my opinion, Huckabee is already verse with this technique. In regards to debates, Romney just needs to keep showing his relaxed and “unplugged” side while under fire and he’ll continue to win them. In regards to advertisements, I recommend the following:

1. Say what’s wrong with a policy without naming names. Smart voters can draw the line to who holds the wrong policy, especially when candidates espouse the policy you show to be wrong
2. An example of this is the following: “Some folks still want to give illegals the benefit of staying in the U.S. indefinitely. This is a bad policy. We need to take away the magnet that is drawing them here in the first place.”
3. After you show why a policy is bad, then highlight your good policy
4. “I will remove the factors that bring illegals here. I will build the fence and create an ID system which helps businesses only hire legal immigrants, etc.”
5. After highlighting your good policy, seal the deal with driving your vision home
6. “Washington is broken and has not fixed this problem. I can fix this problem. That’s what I do. I will fix the illegal immigration problem and will secure America and restore fairness to the many immigrants legally waiting in line to come here.”

I would humbly advise not naming names in ads and sticking only to policies while explaining why a policy is bad, then why your policy is good and follow through with your vision for the future. This lays the foundation for the debates where you can reiterate why a policy is bad without attacking specific candidates. Most voters are smart enough to draw in between the lines.

Once you are attacked in a debate, then you are free to tie bad policies to their supporters and drive the message home.

Nathan W.

Share on Facebook

Share This