Right Going Wrong?

Kelley, you are by far one of my favorite bloggers. When was the last fun story to involve Republicans? I can't remember, although the media does have an unhealthy obsession with Obama/Clinton. You were dead on about the HRC/LOGO debate; not going was a stupid decision. Worse was (love Townhall still) conservative coverage whose idea of reaching out to the voters were linking gays to pedophilia. It seems we Republicans don't have a post-primary thought capacity. Hopefully we can win in 08, but when the Democrats start looking good you know how dire the situation is.

Try using:
defecate or get off the solid waste processing unit.
male bovine excrement
excrement intersecting the oscillator

Ok, now for a few serious comments.

marketing: normally the silly season will start about 4-6 months prior to the primaries. Strategic marketing would say that holding onto your funds until the majority of people are starting to take notice would be more efficient. Also remember that the Republicans are dealing with a new issue, no incumbent running (prez/vice prez)

debates: first, the assumption that LOGO is the source for gay news. This is absurd because of the diversity of people, so too the gay community. Second, then you would agree that the Dems snubbing the FoxNews debate offer was a serious mistake and therefore no conservative/libertarian that watches FoxNews will ever vote for the Dems.

appeal: most people find that appeal in a presidential candidate is much different than a beauty contest. They, in the end, vote for someone that appears to be competent and capable not who has the best hair.

As for hillary, she has many faults that will be pointed to, once the primaries are over. Normally the party candidates do not shoot their fellow candidates with the big stuff, instead trying to position themselves on certain issue differences.

Marketing: I understand a candidate's desire to hold onto their money and save it for big attention-getting advertisements closer to the actual elections, BUT what about FREE publicity? It doesn't cost anything to get in a news story or get your name in the paper if done legitimately....all we hear is "Obama and Clinton and Edwards" - oh my! Yes, we can partially thank the liberal media bias. But if the republicans were actually doing slightly news-worthy and/or attention-getting things to get their names out there, then we'd be able to compete better in the media sphere with the Big Three on the Left - that's what I was orginally referring to.

Debate: #1. LOGO being news worthy or not has nothing to do with it. It's the point that a debate addressing the gay community was blantantly avoided by a group that is known to be un-gay-friendly. It made us look more judgmental then we already are, and pretty much guaranteed no gay votes to come to the Right. And #2. I think the dems not coming on FoxNews is a totally different subject matter. I'm not saying that was smart, but refusing to address the gay community head-on is different than not wanting to engage in a liberal-conservative cat fight.

appeal: Appeal, like beauty, is more than skin deep, sir. Convincing someone you are a compotent and capable goes hand-and-hand with making yourself appealing to the public. It also has to do with being likable. It's an impression that once put out negatively makes it harder to reverse...all the more reason for the Republicans to try harder.

Marketing: TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing AS A Free Lunch). The majority of the "free" notice is because of political gaffs being made by the candidates. Like Obama's missteps in foreign policy. It would be nice however the MSM will not report on items like Huckabee getting the bounce in the straw poll because of issues like the FairTax. When the issue is conservative in nature then there is very little reporting.

Debate: I understand your point. The problem becomes which "single" issues are important to the candidates. Those that affect everyone like tax, illegal immigration, foreign policy, etc. or those that affect a single group like gay rights, military benefits, etc. The idea that because a candidate won't focus on a "pet" issue means that the candidate is judgmental is immature. This is a common claim that is used to trumpet an issue, same as things like the Plame flare up being reported as the WH going after Plame in retaliation which far from the truth and used to inflame the emotions.

Appeal: same type thing. I really don't care if the person building my house, making my car, (name a function) is Democrat, Republican, straight, gay, man, woman, etc., I am more concerned with their abilities, knowledge and skills in the given area and their aptitude for that function. When emotion is used to determine an answer or response then usually the result has many problems ala Jimmy Carter.