Guess we have to buy a bunch of theaters in order to control the message ?
Newspapers are pretty cheap right now, ask Sam Zell.
AM Radio is already there message-wise.
FM Radio is NPR and music streams.
Cable TV …..humm ?
Wait ! Wait !! I've got it !!!
THE INTERNET.

Every time I see anyone who worked on the campaign for John McCain, especially the ones who threw Sarah Palin under the bus after it was over, as an "expert" on any Fox show I think how are these people still working? I know McCain wasn't a good candidate, but the sheer ineptitude on display during the whole campaign was staggering. I don't believe I heard a well articulated message the whole time. And don't even get me started on the miss-handling of Palin. The Republicans don't just need new marketing, they need a whole new marketing team.

I think the argument here, though, is that the Right has yet to elevate the message to an art form. Look at it this way: we're a movement, and one that's been around forever. But the movement is framed by what we're doing now, the 21st century. Any movement of worth – until fairly recently – has been framed by conservative, republican, or religious ideology. Plato, Milton, Michelangelo, Blake, Bach, Elvis… all of these guys had a "mass market" appeal, for want of a better term, that bordered on the subversive without being wholly irreverent. On the fringe without being alienating. On the progressive without kissing common sense or values goodbye. Johnny Ramone had razorblade appeal tinged with straightfaced conservatism. Reagan was a rockstar.

What we've seen from the left is that the medium is the message – if it's candy coated and hollow, take it with water like Aspirin. The pill might be bitter (don't chew!) but it goes down easy. Let's see the right take the medium to the message – we've neglected it for too long and it's made us look antiquated.

GREAT article.

When Obama and the Democrat's policies start affecting the average Joe/Jane's pocket book, they will need a new marketing firm. One thing we do control is most of the small business in this country and every one of us will have the opportunity to explain to our customers, why every thing is out pacing their pay check. We send out heads up notice to our customers, if we know a price increase is coming. You can damn well bet, from now on they will include the reasons.

OK so for every house closed upon in the real estate offices of America, ACORN claims $100. Time to sterilize the stealth parasites of our time. How many billions have taxpayers handed over to these worms thanks to the PukOcrats in Copngress? Crush ACORNS.

McCains people are and will always be dolts. We need not only a clear leader but a tough one. One who can shovel it back to the leftish trash. The way someone like Colin Powell can go on and on about Rush when the need strikes him, we need a leader who can say Garafalo is a small bag of wind with glasses. Who is it gonna be is the question. I know who I want it to be.

The Obama brand marketing was stellar. The no-substance candidate was all packaging and polish, logos and swag. The Republican marketing strategy was abysmal. Yes, we need to get rid of the old team and bring in new blood.

Stream of consciousness: Morning in America – probably too quaint now. Happy with the government – thank a Dem. Rush’s attitude works – happy, laughing and keeps a straight face while telling people he’s awesome and always right (the in joke is he’s joking, sort of…you can’t ever really tell – that’s the point!). Keep that attitude. Of course we are right. Never pander. Never apologize. Sense of humor! We rock and we know it and you should know it and you will know it. Eventually you will love us. Think annoying loser guy in a love story – who does get the girl. Think Anthony Michael Hall in 16 Candles. Above all – call it out simply. Think Bill Murray. If on a talk show with say, Perez – when it’s you’re turn to speak: look shocked and say something like, “Wow. That was MEAN. Why are you so mean?” The best defense is INNOCENCE! Why are you so mad? Why do you like terrorists? Why do you want people to lose jobs by overtaxing companies? Play dumb and smile! Always questions them with emotionally charged questions – Why do you HATE (fill in the blank)? Their heads will explode!

The problem is that the Republicans had 8 years and they blew it. They have no new ideas now, and think that if they just vilify the left enough rather than talk about what they really want to do (redistribute wealth and resources from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy), the mindless proles will come running to them to be saved.

They tried to re-brand last week, to go on a "listening tour" to pretend they care, but their master, overlord Limbaugh said "no," and now it's not a listening tour–it's a "we'll tell you what to think" tour, I guess.

The only people who will be put off by a strong, no uncertain terms conservative message are the ones who will never vote for a center/right candidate anyway. Enough with the namby-pamby nonsense, and let's market conservativism for itself, and quit worrying about who might object. Ronald Reagan was called mean-spirited many times, but he didn't start cowering in a corner where he could soften his message. If we keep acting like sheep, the liberals will keep shearing us.

Don't get too excited the democrats have that little detail all sewn up as well.

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/04/30/censoring-cr...

Under a recently-introduced bill, H.R. 1966, bloggers would face up to two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them in a “severe, repeated, and hostile” manner, and thereby cause them “substantial emotional distress.”

Mind you I'd contend the dems alreay are substantially emotionally distressed to begin with.

The problem is Washington politics, they agree on most things, right and left the difference is by degree. You want something that would sell to the majority of Americans, be anti Washington. Perot proved that in 92 if he had not turned into a psychopath he could have won. This sent the two parties into self preservation mode they love their power, and intend to keep it. We need an unabashed conservative, freedom loving American with principled stances that doesn’t get caught up in Washington politics(Sarah Palin?) The Tea Parties were an example of the independent streak that permeates though out this country tap into that and you’ve got a winner for the voters, and the country. Washington is a swamp that needs to be drained, right and left.

namby-pamby=the end of us.

I agree with your concept. What the heck is center-right? No one knows, and no one wants to chance it. We fired a lot of 'center-right' politicians that showed us how little that stood for. No one wanted to vote McCain, and he was the perfect example of center-right.
Who fired up the base? Who was cheered at every event? More importantly, who was so feared by the left they began immediate attacks? It was no 'center-right' politician. It was Sarah Palin, a no-apologies 'keep government out of my business' american who got so tired of things she ran for office. We can dance around this all day long, and RNC will probably ignore this debate anyhow. But we need a leader that will stand up for the things they personally believe in, and that can explain why. That's not the people we have now, in the RNC, or in large measure in congress either. Thank the Lord we have a few left that can speak up, but is it enough to save the party? Doesn't look so good.

Use clips from these in political ads:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117523/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235549/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0255994/

Absolutely not! Are are the things we believe in. If we believe in life, our marketing department needs to find a way to explain we value all life, the life of the fireman, the life of the paramedic, the life of the old woman living alone and depending on the social security check every month. We value them! We don't consider them another 4 votes in a different state in a tight election. We need to tell our side, that's what marketing is about! If we give up one battle, one position, one moral value then the liberals have won before the ballot is ever cast.
It's this defeatist attitude that must be stomped on, and ridiculed for the nonsense it is. Marketing? We seem to have taken our cues from the 1940's french military. It must stop, and if our party is to survive, it must stop now.

It's always my theory that this is why conservatives rule talk radio and liberals rule hollywood and television (same). You have to sing and dance a liberal message, because if you actually talk about liberal theology, you realize it doesn't work! If you actually sit down and talk about conservative principles in a boring 3 hr radio session, you realize it works. (call me biased)

I agree with that in part, but disagree in part.

Agree: We can't be timid about our message.

Disagree: The problem with going "full on conservative" is that this usually means stressing the more controversial issues. Those issues tend to turn undecided voters off. That's why those issues need to be put out there in a more targetted fashion.

Part of selling a product is learning who will want to hear which parts of the message and who won't, and finding ways to get the right messages to the right people. If you just make one big broad appeal, and mix all of your issues, people will pick out the parts they don't like.

Moreover, the one thing the American people want (and which Reagan delivered all the time) is a positive message. Too many of the "single issue" ideas are very negative.

I would suggest putting out a broad statement of principles, largely based on individual rights, economic freedoms and fiscal responsibility. Then target the social issues more carefully to the groups who would be more receptive to them.

I totally agree with you Leigh. Go get em.

I typed faster than I thought. I want a clear conservative candidate, in what I believe to be a center-right nation. A candidate who declares himself or herself to be "center-right" is probably a liberal in training. Also, a center-right candidate, even with good intentions, can never be as effective as a conservative who doesn't waver. Too worried about the feelings of the opposition.

I hate to admit it, but he is right. For Bush (as another Bush) to tell us when a Reagan era is over, at the expense of another bush added to the bush era, I get angry. What idea is that? What are they wanting to replace that Reagan valued? A listening tour would be much different than this charade. Are they going to hear the millions of americans that want the border secured? Are they going to hear from us anything they haven't already tested in polls and gotten the nod from in the RNC? I don't think so. So, this tour has gone from a waste of time to the level of insulting. To us normal americans, that is.

So long as we don't abandon principles, I'm game for a great deal of "marketing." But I think conservative issues are marketable without watering them down or making them so broad as to be unrecognizable. "Abortion is murder" isn't going to win a lot of undecided voters. But a clear message about families, options, and the needs of both a mother and an unplanned baby can go a long way to bringing over those who think it's all or nothing.. That said, we can never abandon the abortion issue without losing our souls. We must market those ideas that clearly distinguish conservatives from liberals while pointing out that most Americans actually lean conservative. Muddled messages (McCain) lead to defeat. We can't be all things to all men, so let's be the right things to the greatest number of people.

Law, marketing can do the job. This article we're discussing hit it right spot on.
There are conservative marketers that can get an effective message out.
I'm not catholic, but this youtube clip gives me chills. Even this far after the election I think about it when making moral choices.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61wj4tJICcc
The RNC needs to get these guys on our side, and use them without tying their hands.

Its the tyranny, stupid! Individual freedom first, last , and always. How is that for a clear message?

I would NEVER suggest abandoning principles — just selling them more carefully. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't seem to understand the art of the sell.

Nor am I talking about watering them down. But take the abortion issue for example. Studies show that only a small percent of the population (single digits on either side) base their votes on that issue and that the vast majority are turned off by the issue itself. They just don't want to hear about it.

So rather than making this part of big broad-based public ad campaign, stick to other, less-controversial issues. Then address the abortion issue directly with the people who are interested through more narrowly-taylored means. Its the same way Obama "spoke white" to the public at large, but then went on black radio stations and assured them that he was one of them.

It doesn't matter how good your marketing is if you are selling crap that nobody wants to buy. You aren't a "movement." Movements refer to change. You are a bunch of archaic fundamentalists, pining for "the good old days" and trying to repress our freedoms like the taliban. There is nothing "cool" about conservatism.

Thank you. That is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. Halfway through that piece, I was ready to shout "Ave Maria" and run to the closest Mass–and I'm a lifelong Lutheran. Not a negative word in it. No mention of any candidate by name, and all four of the Pres/VP candidates shown respectfully (leaving it to the viewer to decide which believed what). We need to get these people together with the RNC, fast! There was not mistaking what that message was, yet the only words which related to it were "life" and "family." EXCELLENT

The "Freedom sales pitch" paragraph is what has the greatest potential to change the entire debate in our favor. It works in a lot of different directions and with potentially endless interpretations. And it's cool to boot!

The Democratic approach is, "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bulls**t". Conservatives have got to sell the priciple first, then exemplify it with the idea. For instance, the PRICIPLE is a strong national foreign policy, the IDEA is curb foreign aid to "allies" who don't contribute monetarily to their own defense, or refuse to send bodies to support our coalitions fighting overseas. And if the message(s) are based on PRINCIPLE then IDEA we'll have very marketable products. After the Obamamanian policies fail, and they will, the public is not going to be fooled twice with Republicans trying to float amorphous drivel like hope & change again. That would be akin to fighting the last war.
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com

The Republican brand is irreparably damaged – you can't throw THE core principle (smaller government) under the bus and expect to have much drawing power. It's time to kill the old brand and ring in the new…like the New Patriot Party, which stands first and foremost for less government interference in our lives, chucking the tax code and replacing it with the Fair Tax, entitlement reform, states' rights, sunset provisions on government regulations and term limits for every politician! New Patriots stand for prosperity for all, individual responsibilities commensurate with individual rights and a level playing field where each can excel to the extent their drive, talents and abilities are capable of achieving. Now, that's a platform I could really get behind!

What Conservatives need to do is be as good as Democrats at managing the image. Somehow the Dems have branded themselves as compassionate, open-minded and forward thinking while branding us as closed-minded, heard-hearted and parochial. We have to simultaneously expose them as the frauds they are while showing that we stand for the principles of freedom– of thought and action.

I agree 100%!!

Thanks for the advice. We'll be sure to pass it on to Arlen Specter for you. The Republicans blew it all right, but not because of lacking ideas. It blew it by becoming just like Democrats over many years of their grip on Congress. Hold onto that power and that seat, and to hell with doing what's right. What's so great about "new" ideas anyway? Nazism and communism were new ideas, and they didn't work out too well. Socialism isn't new, but the idea of a massive infusion of it into America is new, and it stinks nearly as badly as the other two. Love of country, liberty, the right to do what you wish with your own hard-earned money, love of family, protection of the innocent, treating real life as real life rather than an unachievable nirvana, freedom of speech and religion, defense of our nation from foreign threats, war when necessary, diplomacy that enhances our allies and isolates our enemies, and pride in the greatest nation on earth (I said "greatest," not perfect) are all old ideas which we will be proud to advance. If your "new" ideas ever replace those bedrock ideas, life won't be worth living for the vast majority of the American people. So go sell your new ideas to Obama and his gang of anti-Americans.

Token Liberal here: The problem is that people already associate the Republican Party with false advertising. But be my guest. It worked for GW Bush, maybe it will work as well for you. The Republican Party has no policies, it only has principles. Because of that, it is constantly betraying its principles when it's time for policies. The times are working against you because the times are characterized by problems. For Republicans to win, you'd have to persuade people that a) you'll do better on the economy (not likely); b) the really important problem is not the economy (good luck); c) the really important problems are abortion and gay marriage (35-40% of the vote max); and d) the Republicans can handle the international threat better by Bush-type bluster and arm-twisting than Obama can by creating good will (it will take another 9-11 to bring people back around to that)

Thanks. Unfortunately for Nixon, like Obama, his words were considerably more to be admired than his actions.

We’ll see sounds to me like, 1965, 1979, 1992. America is an inherently conservative country and the pendulum will swing back, right. In fact I would argue based on polls it already has. Barry’s approval ratings are still good but his policies are tanking in the polls, for whatever polls are worth. Like I said we’ll see?

"It’s how the Democrats took over the government and it’s our only hope at taking it back."

No, it's not. For the last time, guys, the Repubs were not defeated on substance. They were defeated by a corrupt press that lied, dissembled, and obfuscated Obama into office. Heck, if the press hadn't decided early on to throw Hillary overboard and run interference for Barack, he wouldn't even have been the Democratic nominee.

Having said that, I agree with Leigh's basic premise that conservatives should make better "trailers" and more appealing sound bites. The problem is, I just don't know how you do that when the arguments you're selling require more than 30 seconds to articulate. The left has the permanent advantage here because they have no coherent arguments. They have goals they want to achieve, and any "argument" that helps them sell their goals will do for them. They don't actually believe any of their bull***t, as exemplified by their hypocrisy on–just to take one example from a possible pool of hundreds–feminism and women's rights. They simply use whatever means are necessary in order to achieve their goals, and since right reason doesn't get you to where they're going, those means are almost invariably dishonest. This works for them because they are never forced to make their case from beginning to end, while conservatives are always forced to begin from square one in every forty-second interview.

Moreover, even if conservatives did a great marketing job, the corruption of the press would prevent their marketing from reaching the ears of the "consumers" who most need to hear it. Let's face it, it's not people with engaged brains who conservatives need to reach. Of that group, either they already agree with conservatives, or they are lefty ideologues beyond salvation. The ones we need to reach are the dummies, who bumble through life with little idea what they're doing, and that group doesn't read newspapers or political websites and blogs. They see stuff flash by them on the t.v. while they're chowing down a Big Mac in the company lunch room. So long as access to those people is controlled by forces hostile to conservatism, they remain largely out of our reach. The only thing that can overcome that is word of mouth, which is difficult to generate among the dumb set, unless you throw dignity and self-respect to the wind and just go all American Idol with American politics–which, come to think of it, may be what Leigh actually means.

I'm at work and can't devote too much time to reading all the comments, so perhaps someone mentioned this, but have you noticed that Republicans who do the talk show circuit tend to talk in phrases like "We believe the president's proposal will stabilize the private sector and lead to future economic development" (that is, he has an opinion that might be wrong); but Democrats tend to sound like "The president's economic proposals will create or save three million jobs!" (that it, he's damn sure of himself.) Perhaps a variation on bin Ladens "Strong horse/weak horse" theory, but I can't help thinking that sounding like you might be correct will come off badly when someone else sounds cock-sure of himself and 40 percent of the voters are too dumb to realize that they're being lied to.

Absolutely NOT! If anything, they should use the same PR firm that those scumbag HAMAS terrorists use;
for the whole WORLD bashed Israel constantly both during and after the recent Gaza campaign precisely because the terrorists' PR machine was infinitely more effective!

As I'm sure you've noticed we are always in agreement about everything in regards to those lunatic murderous Jihadi Muslims, but when it comes to the PR battle, Israel has ALWAYS been woefully INeffective, and consistently outsmarted by the filthy terrorists: for years by Arafat and his Evil minions (including Dmimmi Carter!), and now by Hamas and Hizbollah (and of course Arafat's current replacement).

Yes, that's a very effective video (for us to watch) but can it move people to change their minds? Perhaps without the Life issue, which I'm beginning to think we should put on the back burner UNTIL WE ARE IN THE MAJORITY. In other words, to be as successful as Dems we must learn to LIE, which comes naturally to us, but causes internal strife in US. The stakes are too high now, we have to do it. We have to BS our way back into office and find a celebrity, media savy, good looking candidate who will attract, and I mean ATTRACT, young stupid voters by promising them STUFF. THAT is how you win. Later, you can, as Clinton did on taxes, take it all back ("I worked as hard as I ever have but cha' know I just caent fine no tax cuts in this here budget").
Wake up Republicans, get a clue. Leigh is DEAD ON here. This is American Idol country, not some Christian University Student Council that needs electing!!!!

In the meantime, PRAY for our country.

I meant to say "which comes naturally to THEM" ha ha, perhaps a personal Freudian slip?

Conservatism is all about freedom. That’s the sales pitch. Conservatives endorse freedom. We are the modern day rebels. We are the punk rockers of politics. We like to work hard and party harder. The government is “The Man.” “The Man” tries to hold you down. I've said this before, bring back the bourbon swilling, cigar chomping old dog GOP and the party is on!

That's all you had to say…

NOW it makes perfect sense (whew, that's a relief!).
Needless to say, I thought you meant "must use" as a suggestion rather than a criticism!

Andrew, the people that seemed to play to, was people that take the responsibility of voting very seriously. That listen and decide based on every piece of information they can gather. They don't want to be told what to vote for, they want a reason to 'vote for'. Not all Catholics voted against Obama, in spite of his horrible record on abortion.
This goes back to the article, we need better marketing. If you ask any woman if they should be able to decide what they want reproductively, they will say yes. If you ask the same woman if sexually active people should use 'responsible' birth control they will say yes again. But, those same woman probably would not consider abortion as a first line of birth control. So, it's a matter of marketing.
The liberals know how to make our every issue offensive, we need to know how to make every single issue positive. And more than that, we need to make them larger than life, so simple they cannot be turned against us again.

Yes, cranky you are exactly right. Marketing will get our toe in the door, nothing more. But at least that will slow the advance of marxism.
We have to start someplace, and this makes sense as that first place to start. But we need to remove rudderless politicians that say 'the era or Reagan is dead'. They are not leaders, and will lead us right where we are today. My own congressmen, a normal conservative put in earmarks this time. He has been getting phone calls and letters, and finally went on local radio stations explaining himself. It's the people that are dragging him screaming, holding him accountable. We need to do that until our RNC gets the message, and makes the legislators toe the line. The DNC does.

America must be an inherently liberal country too, otherwise there wouldn't be anywhere for the pendulum to swing from. I don't know about the historical analogies because of the unique current fatal sandwich of the debt and the credit crisis–the latter of which is probably not quite over. I don't want to go all partisan on you and rebut point by point, because I think there is a lot to what you say; however, the thing about public disapproval of President Obama's policies versus his personal ratings is that everyone's policy approval numbers are in the tank. The President (pardon my manners) has the advantage of at least being liked and trusted. But that's not really on point.

Leigh Scott wrote:
“We are the punk rockers of politics.”
Really?

James Dobson might be shocked to learn he’s a punk rocker in any sense. Same goes for Eric Cantor ,Sarah Palin,Hannity,Hank Jr,Mitt Romney,Lee Greenwood,John McCain,Rush Limbaugh,Michelle Bachmann,etc. .

Republicans are the punk rockers of politics?
Ask Jello Biafra. Or Henry Rollins, Patti Smith,Crass,Green Day, The Clash, Avail,Fugazi,Born Against, Richard Hell, Kathleen Hanna,they would tell you this a ridiculous statement.

No,republicans are the Heritage Foundation of politics. The Christian Coalition of Politics. The Focus On The Family of politics. The Eagle Forum of Politics.

“But Oily, what about Johnny Ramone?” What about the Conservative Punk website?
What about Joey Ramone, who wrote a song that attacked Reagan(‘Bonzo Goes To Bitburg’). And the Conservative Punk site was just an attempt by right wingers to copy Punk Voter.
The only “punk” band the GOP of 2009 resembles is Skrewdriver.

Oily, I understand what you are saying. But I also understand what the author was saying. In the realm of politics, we are the second rate game players. We have substance, but not the flashy form. In the rock and roll world, flash is everything. So, when we play our values down we loose every single time.

If republicans are just learning that marketing is the key to winning then I would have to say that republicans are not the Capitalists that everyone thinks republicans are. I guess republicans really are not capitalists considering the perception that most CEO's vote democrat.

Until republicans have a message that can be marketed to the majority then the party will go nowhere.

We need to define our issues based on Ideas that people can grasp. I would hope republicans may start defining issues from the perspective of State Rights vs. National Powers. Abortion and Gay Rights – state issues. Foreign Policy – national issue.

Bill of Rights
Amendment 10
States' rights
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Get back to Basics folks you do not have to reinvent the wheel it is right in front of you.

Then Market the hell out of it. What are the Dems going to say the Constitution sucks and we need to get rid of it.
Republicans should only hope Democrats are that stupid!

But Suzie, we do 'out do them' on every issue. We want the things they claim to, but we actually move towards goals, and not double speak. Energy independance is a perfect example. We tolerated them having an energy department and how much more energy have we gotten? We want energy, they want to control and limit energy. Having a message isn't enough. We have to get that message explained and out to the vast masses of people. And we have to outsmart the media that will stab us in the back at every single step.
It's that gutter 'survivor' attitude we lack. We'd rather negociate, compromise and water down what we are. That will leave us as solid as warm jello.

The notion that you can overcome the Republican problem with marketing ignores every bit of political wisdom ever gathered. You have to get people to the polls on election day. People who belong to groups that have interests at stake vote. The others generally don't in this country. People who look at Obama's victory solely in terms of public perception are missing the point. He had an amazing organization and the money to run it. He got people to vote.

You may be changing the definition. Marketing to most people, in a general sense "Making people see something the way you want them too." (that's a working definition off the top of my head)

Every successful campaign has used marketing, and used it to get people into their camp as supporters, then as supporters to the polls. Here in flyover country I would have to disagree with you. Every person that writes out a check for taxes has a stake. This time they voted for tax cuts (95%, remember? That was marketing!) and were lied to. We need to let people know we are different. The trick is 'being' different. That's why so many republicans got fired this time around.

The only liberal tactics I would use would be to take advantage of the star quality a Sarah Palin has and use the media to do it. I think it's a mistake when people in the party try to keep her at arms distance, especially when you look at the crowds she brought to the campaign stops. Conservatives get jumpy when the MSM jumps all over their people. George Bush made that mistake by trying to take the high ground and not respond to leftist attacks. I think that's a mistake. I think we should use the media– at least the friendly media like Fox and news radio (I don't know how to make any other media outlet non-hostile to conservatives) to keep people like Palin in the spotlight. If someone like Obama, who has no resume compared to Palin can be elected based on nothing but personality alone, then Palin should be able to sell herself if she's given the right exposure. Like you said, some people are sheep. If they see a good, solid conservative (could be Palin, Jindal– whomever) in front of them often enough they might actually start listening to the message.

Society's becoming more educated? I'm not sure what line of work you're in, pal, but my students in the highschool classroom demonstrate daily the unwillingness (no, the blasted inability!) of this HOPE-infused society to actually pick up a book. Your argument is jerrybuilt to the point of absurdity.

So you're anti-religion, too? That's fair; however, where do you want to draw the line with respect to legislating morality? What part is innate and what part is contrived (or agreed upon) as a result of a social contract? That's a different discussion entirely.

No, no, AF. You don't need to be particularly religious (even particularly conservative) to buy into the classical idea of the Republic. This idea – which has, by its nature, always been a discourse which entertained varieties of literary, ideological, philosophical, intellectual and religious dissection – belongs to the people, not a particular political bent. The idea of the republican society is NOT a third world notion, it is NOT based on a platform of stupidity and ignorance, it is NOT regressive and it is NOT fancy marketing.

You're right. No lipstick on a pig. So why do you accept the egregious fact of a president who puts lipstick on pork? And who, in the process, has spent more than any president in history, divided polls more sharply than your reviled Bush, has threatened not only freedom of speech but of thought by allowing his cronies to legislate the airwaves, who plays friendly with leaders who ARE fascists, communists, dictators… You're all right with that?

Pick your poison, friend. And then stick with it. You foolishly wag your finger at the archaic past as a point of contention when 1984 – the future YOU voted for – begins to unfold under your nose.

Or, you know, just kiss your brains goodbye.

haha punk rockers? what a Joke.

That's the conventional wisdom. Reagan rejected it and won. It did mean he took three tries to win the primaries, but was willing to pay his dues to get his message out.

That's simply not true with all respect, that's what libs would LOVE us to think. Even my liberal friends agree with us on most points if it's taken out of the context of being conservative or Republican. We should just call ourselves the Liberal Party and keep our same principles, we'd win every time. It's brand ID more than it is anything else.

You're determined to ruin my nap-time, aren't you? I don't think we're that far apart. We seem to be saying a lot of the same things. Indeed, we need to have one or two major unifying themes. "Bury Obama" and "Hang the Tax-Collectors" come to mind, or maybe "Take my wife, please" (kidding, just kidding). I think the broad themes are certainly necessary, I am simply suggesting that we have core issues that we've beaten the other side over the head with instead of gently leading their followers over to our side. What I am saying is that along with the main theme or message, we need to do a much better job of handling core issues by making them apparent to the base and reasonable and comfortable to the great mass of undecideds. I will never give up on the idea of being able to turn a substantial number of knee-jerk "pro-choice" voters into "pro-lifers." I carefully chose the words "pro-choice" and "pro-life to avoid the all-too-simplistic "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." The issue, along with a few other conservative favorites, could very well swing a tight race to our side, and it's a fight I intend to engage in because all my moral senses demand it. Too often the Republican leadership is told that something is a "wedge issue" that will cost us votes without even thinking that it could be done in such a way as to become "an open issue which helps us."

The vast majority of Americans believe that abortion must be curbed and brought down to reasonable levels. Yet the majority of them voted for the most baby-deadly President in American history. The left has succeeded in convincing large voting blocs that conservatives are anti-abortion berserkers because we have consistently handled this as a wedge issue, and we've handled it badly. I'll surrender some of my core issues temporarily for purposes of gaining broad consensus voting. Abortion is the one issue I will not abandon. That's why I like that video so much. In your scenario, which I basically agree with, the only thing as important as the winning issue(s) is the candidate. We need a lot of work in that area right now as well.

I think, in general, we are on the same page.

Your point: "along with the main theme or message, we need to do a much better job of handling core issues by making them apparent to the base and reasonable and comfortable to the great mass of undecideds."

I agree with this 100%.

But this is also where I have the problem with the activists. They are so impassioned/blinded by their issue that they don't understand that the vast majority of the population either doesn't care about their issue or actively disagrees with them. So when we begin this kind of conversation about how to "sell" our message, they jump in and demand that the party use their issue to try to reach the rest of the population. Objections to that plan, no matter how reasonable or how carefully made, are usually met with angry denials and assertions that the speaker is somehow not pure enough.

Let's be honest. Issues are considered controversial because there is no consensus — either within the party our in society at large. Thus, it makes no sense to demand that the party make that issue one of its central themes.

Well, I wouldn't mind being wrong. No sarcasm here, but don't you think that people would rather vote themselves some free money rather than get the gov't out of their hair?

I think of Murtha's constiuents.

That is correct. The middle was drawn to Reagan because he offered plans that they believed in (common sense stuff) and because he sounded like a man who could fulfill those promises.

They did not follow him because he made appeals on fringe issues.

That's my point. We need to make the same kind of broad-appeal appeals — conservative ideas that the middle can accept. We should not try to attract the middle with base-pleasing, fringe ideas.

P.S. As for having a lot to work with, we have the same thing today — the party leadership just doesn't have any ideas how to solve the problems we have:

1. We have second rate, failing education.
2. Our health care system is unworkable.
3. Our fiscal discipline is a joke
4. Our economic growth has been sluggish.
5. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant.
6. Our foreign policy is a mess.
7. Our food supply and medicines are perceived to be unsafe.
8. Big Business/Big Labor have far too much influence in our government.
9. We are energy dependent.
10. Our personal privacy is under attack in the information age.
11. Individual rights are under attack by the government.

Just to name a few.

Oh yeah, a lot to work with indeed. Somebody just needs to pick up the club and start beating him about the face and shoulders, metaphorically of coarse, ha.

I believe we are in accord. Excellent.

On the issue of what we stand for, let me post something that I wrote during the election. At the time, I visited the Republican website and I found a pledge/statement of principles that was so bad that it actually offended me.

In my anger, I wrote a nasty letter to Mike Duncan, which included what I thought would have been a better pledge — pretty much off the top of my head. It's a little broader than what we are talking about here, but I think it's a good start for this conversation. Let me post that and see what you think. . .

I am a Republican because…

I believe in limited and accountable government. I believe in the Constitutional separation of powers between the branches of the government, between the federal government and the states, and between the government and its citizens. I believe in state’s rights. I believe in the protection of civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I reject judicial activism and the shift of power from the legislature to the executive. Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

I believe in fiscally responsible government. I reject deficit spending, unfair and excessive taxation, and unnecessary and irrational regulation.

I believe in free market economics and the protection of property rights. I reject government ownership of private business and the confiscation of private property. I believe in free and fair trade.

I believe in a strong national defense, and in promoting the values of democracy, freedom, and human rights around the world. I reject isolationism, but I also reject adventurism. Walk softly, but carry a big stick.

I am the Republican Party. I believe in freedom, liberty, and responsibility.

You don't understand conservative people at all. We don't just take positions on convenience. We take them on principal. We take them on values we hold to our core, our most important beliefs. We can't suspend that. We won't suspend that, Most Christians (as an example) would rather die a moral person that failed materially, then a successful person that sold their soul.

There is consensus on abortion in most of the country, if presented properly, all your educated double speak can't change that. Poll after poll has shown most do not like abortion. We can explain all we like but the media twists it around and re-defines our own positions. Part of marketing is controlling that, if used properly.
You can claim it makes no sense to make issues a central theme, and you'll be just as successful as McCain.

Do you remember the 1980 election? Reagan had a way of disarming the political commentators that hounded him constantly. "Well, there you go again…" was one of his best. It cut to the core of the problem, media that spins everything and gets away with it. But there were problems, like the recession after he took office. The spending the libs in congress refused to control, then blamed on Reagan. I think your take on why Reagan won is scewed, he won because we thought he was on our side, not DC's side. And he never let us loose site of that.

I like it a lot. The only thing I would change is "state's rights." You and I both know what that means, as do most of the people posting on this site. But the liberals have co-opted it to mean "racial segregation and civil war." Something believed in by Southern bigots. How about "I believe that the states should be allowed to exercise those broad powers granted to them by the Constitution without interference from the national government."

I wasn't sure you would reply to this– I inadvertently deleted the comment (which is odd since IntenseDebate usually does it for me).

Anyway.

One question I have is how is "immediate danger" to the mother determined? The reason I ask is because I had to have an emergency delivery with my daughter and let me tell you, they can get a baby out quick when they need to. And there would be no need that I can think of to terminate the life of the baby. How does killing the baby save the mother's life? At least under circumstances in which the baby is viable it makes no sense to me at all.

The problem with this line is, most of it was here thanks to an encumbant republican president. Some have gotten worse, but Obama puts the blame squarely on Bush in case you hadn't noticed. The only thing here that you can lay at Obama's fault is foreign policy being in a mess, thanks to his apologies and bowing to the Saudi King. It's confused a lot of people around the world what to expect from us. The rest would be blown right back in our faces.
The more I read your posts in content and idealogy, I have to ask myself what position you held in the McCain campaign.

No, no…the point was today's rebel is the one who actually wants freedom and will take it, along with it's consequences. Instead of the conformist dependents of our mommy government. I think that was the point of the comparison.

You just proved AP's point about fringe groups. Congratulations. Why don't you call him a commie next.

Two Points:

One: Typically the "dummies" don't vote. I now the O got a great turnout of young people yada yada…
So the % went from 19% to 21% of this group voting. The Stupid don't vote and don't care. Even if could motivate them for an election cycle it will be a fluke.

Two: So this leaves the remainder of the masses. While it may seem they ar not clued into all the issues and this may in fact be true. There usually is one issue that drives them to make their decision. For the elderly its their social security benenfits, for the unions it's Walmart, free money for whatever cause,etc.

I would be concerned that going after the "Stupid" vote is not cost effective. Even if you are successful you end up with fewer votes than other approaches might give you.

i neglected to do this earlier after reading a few of your posts. Welcome aboard. Your posts are excellent, and I admire anyone who is willing to roll up his sleeves and enter the lions' den of education. You remind me of the teachers I had when I was growing up. I was afraid you had all gone extinct, but now I know that there is still hope for the kids. I just hope I don't now become overly self-conscious about my grammar, construction and punctuation. A real life English teacher is an intimidating thing for those of us who have had the luxury of abandoning English as she is spoke. Stay with us–you're a breath of fresh air.

Token: Actually, the President being liked and trusted is exactly on point. All successful con artists are well liked and trusted, frequently as they are helping themselves to your life savings and destroying your life. And the thing con artists do best is enrich themselves by exploiting other people's crises and need for leadership. The Democrats did a fantastic job of marketing a con man extraordinaire. We will win the upcoming battles by marketing genuine basic American principles with a candidate who doesn't dazzle the rubes with meaningless abstractions like hope and change, but advances solid and truthful plans for the future. Unlike the Socialist in Chief, we don't want to "re-make" America. We want to restore it to greatness. All the organization in the world couldn't have saved the candidacy of John McCain. Fantastic con artist selling hopenchange beats boring old coot selling socks with holes in them every time.

You can have the best marketing in the world but the product has to be a good one.
You can get some people to buy a lame product once, but they won't be back again unless it is decent or at least better than the competitors, no matter how good the pitch. Unfettered capitalism does not work. There needs to be strong central government to maintain stability and order. Corporations have only their self interest at heart and this leads to very bad things. Trickle down economics doesn't work. We have had proof of that from 1980-1992 and again from 2000-2008 as we watched our national debt soar both times and unemployment rise. This most recent time almost killed our country. Fortunately the stock market has risen almost 2000 points since Obama has instituted his economic plan. Investors are gaining confidence in an administration that is pro-active.
The next 8 years will be good for the country. We may even make it back to where we were in 1999.

For instance, Patti Smith and Richard Hell were kinda pre-punk and Green Day was after, Fugazi rejected pure punk and Henry Rollins is kind of a creepy uncle/douche though they are great musicians in their own right all.

Oh yeah, a boycott! Tug at the purse strings and the rest will follow. Capture the energy of the Tea Parties an incredibly strong voting and purchasing block.

We're not extinct – but a group of bitter young men and women have taken the torch. =) I don't criticize the grammar of blog posters when the poster is intelligent; as long as you're not LOOOLing too much, I politely turn a blind eye. In any case, Hawk, I love your posts too, as you're the perfect example of substance over style: you could write in Pig Latin for all I care.

It doesn't matter how good the trailer is if the MSM wont play it. That is were the battle is. Plus we can't overlook the power of late night talk shows, this is were a lot of people get their news. And your right our PR department SUCKS. It would also help if the only big balls in the Republican Party didn't belong to a woman. GOD Bless Sarah Palin, the men need to learn from her. It would also help if we stopped attacking our own.

[...] GOP needs a new marketing department: Now, before this turns into a two-hundred comment post with people yelling about not giving up [...]

Uh…there sems to be some confusion going on here. since when are Republcans conservatives? some people here really need to wake up.

NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE DOES THE WORD "REPUBLICAN" APPEAR.

Will all the republican posters please go away? THIS IS NOT FOR YOU!

Conservatives need their OWN party, but they are too LAZY to do that.

All you republicans…please go to hell.

"Change the marketing" = disguised way of saying, "Downplay cultural issues."

The present Republican so-called Party needs a thorough purge.

Then the marketing can change.

WELL SAID!

If people are sooooooooo incredibly stupid that they didn't know that BAM was "fellow traveler" then no amount of 'branding' is going to work for republicans.

When someone gives advice that has led to defeat in the recent past, I will point that out. If that's a distinction shared by fringe groups, then I'll risk it. Inclusion handled properly is a good thing. But cowering behind the lowest common denominator doesn't seem to be working for us.

It's not so much the message is getting lost, as much as people are turned off by the messengers.
Until the GOP can exert control over its "trash-talking" mouthpieces that criticize everything Obama and everything Democratic, the majority of the American public will turn away from the elitist, snobby, and sometimes smarmy, way the GOP is portraying itself as somehow "better" than the "other guy" by Divine Right…

Andrew, I think you seem to be a well intentioned person. But this discussion went from an article on putting our ideas out in the public arena in a better way, using marketing. Then it has shifted to ideas being offensive and needing to sweep them quietly under the rug to be not noticed. That was the point of the article. Our ideas are better! And if they aren't being explained in a way that helps us, then we need to explain them differently. Market them in a way people will not only understand these ideas, but take them as their own. Positive methods, stopping liberal spin, and cutting back stabbers out of the loop only seems prudent.
Reagan did it by appealing directly to the people. He would look right into the camera and place the blame square on the shoulders of those responsible. And yes people were getting tired of it by the time his second term was winding down. But, the right leader can do that. Palin had star power even with SNL running spoofs to mock her, with every major media outlet calling her everything under the sun, and her own running mate trying to muzzle her.
She talks from the heart and people respond, I say someone like that needs to be embraced, not marginalized. It's not smart marketing to reject possible assets in any prolonged battle.

This article expresses exactly what I believe to be the problem as well ( am a 53 year old professional woman). The focus needs to be putting down "the man" as Leigh puts it. I believe people like Limbaugh and Coulter appeal to the conservative right, I listen to them, but I don't agree with everything they say and they don't represent me. I believe they represent the 21% who claim they are still republicans (leaving out 79% of us who are looking for something different). The rest of us are looking for someone to represent us without severing the strength of the entire party. If the repubs choose to split the party, there will be no way to defeat the democrats, especially if a third party forms with a large following. Wouldn't it be smarter to unite all factions of the Republican party and compromise on some issues for the betterment of the country in the form of less government? Rush is wrong, the Republicans do need to listen, and it will be insulting to most of us to be lectured/taught about what the Republican party stands for, we are not all conservatives.

You understand, though, that the argument is being framed this way on purpose. If you are being considered ignorant, racist, homophobic, etc., then they have you right where they intended you. There was a book I read in the late nineties written by people in the movement who used a special marketing name for that. I'll let you do the research on your own, however.

Where did you get THAT figure?

There's nothing wrong with maintaining the Republican stance on the social issues, although personally I find many of the social-conservative arguments difficult to take seriously.

Republicans lost because they chose to ride that particular hobby-horse for way too long – well after it had become obvious that the nation had bigger fish to fry.

But, as many others have said… once they abandoned fiscal and constitutional conservatism, what did they have left?

Liberals want to restore America to greatness as well. We just believe we can do it without sabre-rattling and punching holes in the Constitution.

Roger, part of reaching the public is tailoring the message to reach the people who will be receptive to that message and avoiding saying things to them that will turn them off.

Controversial issues turn people off — that's why they are controversial. Indeed, on most of these issues, there isn't even a consensus within the party. I assure you, I know a vast number of conservatives, and they hold a range of opinions on each of the more controversial issues.

You seem to think that I'm talking about muzzling people or shutting them up. I am not. I am not talking about banning issues or changing our principles or anything of the sort. I am talking about tailoring our message — first to the general public and then to the activists, because these are two very different groups that need to be reached differently.

I thought Michael Steele already rebranded for the "Conservative Movement". Conservatives are in the "urban-suburban hip hop setting"s, and they're "off the hook". Conservatives are urban and hip and use trendy youth slang. I thought. But now conservatives are punk rock rebels? Let me tell you, hip hop kids and punk rockers do not hang out with each other. So which is it?

Well, you have somewhere between two and four years to restore American greatness by joining hands with our enemies and singing Kumbaya while you burn the Constitution. Well see how that works out.

Which greatness are you referring to? I see where Barry’s doubling tax agents, is that the greatness you are referring to?

NOT the girl he originally wanted. (Molly Ringwald.)

I take offense to this "restore American to greatness" comment.

A 60-year democratic majority in Congress up to 1994 also helped to create the debt that currently exists. The fact that Obama is looking at doubling that debt over the next 4 years doesn't help — it will take generations of fiscal management to remedy the debt he is incurring in a rapid period of time.

"but at least when Obama redistributes wealth he manages to make more people happy. "

What the hell does this mean?

It's amazing. Republican presidents are responsible for deficits. Unless, of course there are republican congresses, then it's the congress's fault. But, it's always the fault of the republicans.

Note to Sinkatu: I was around during Reagan's presidency. It was a liberal congress under Tip O'Neal that spend money with Reagan threatening, begging and pleading with them to stop. He even worked out deals with so much in tax cuts for each dollar in spending as I recall. If you try re-writing history in our schools you may get away with it. But here probably someone will call you on it.

Only saying things that people want to hear is also called shallow and two faced. In this day and age with the hostile media we face, it would be, and has been disasterous. While what you say is true generally, we cannot forget the template we face. A hostile media jumping at every opportunity to make us look foolish and greedy. Some of the new comments this morning blaming Reagan for deficit spending is a prime example. We have to be shrewd enough to avoid those pitfalls. And being as transparent as Obama promises is the only way to regain trust.

Excellent post on the whole, and I don't want to quibble with minor points. Completely agree.

One twist I might add, however, is that there's something more difficult in selling the Conservative platform than the liberal one. Big Government social planning boils down to "vote for me and I'll give you everything you want" (the hidden meaningful part will be the tax burden, like replacing Megan Fox with Rosie O'Donnell).

The Conservative message, however, is "I can't make your world perfect like the other guy claims, the world isn't perfect, you'll have to take some personal responsibility, but I'll make damn sure I don't stand in you way and remove all the barriers for you I can."

The Conservative message is ultimately more attractive, I think (and believe). But along with good marketing, it requires good education.

Also, younger voters are actually leaning more and more pro-life on the abortion issue (while they are more and more in favor of gay marriage). Right now, the message needs to be first and foremost the economy, but we don't need to put abortion on the back burner.

[...] *Leigh Scott to Conservatives: Fire Your Marketing Department. [...]

Most of the issues on the social side are massively popular.  Border Control is the LEAST popular, and it hits it out of the park at 70%. What we need are people who really mean what they say about pushing social issues, and have a sense of humor about it, and some imagination in presenting it.But most of these issues, inspire the Left to frothing hatred. Shrug. Smack them in the face with a stick when they start spitting at you.Being righteous is fun. Freedom is part of being righteous. Freedom without righteousness is just empty games playing.Your style is well, but your message needs a bit of alteration.

you wont win the pr battle til you win the culture war. You cannont "drop the social issues from the marketing" because the media will not allow it. The left wingers will push the issue just as Katie did to Palin. Republicans dont get a pass like Democrats, so stop dreaming.

Until the culture is flooded with stories either fictional or true which demonstrates the morality and kindness of the anti-abortion position so that supporters of the position have some claim on empathy, then you are doomed to failure. Right now, the media and culture collude to paint anti abortion proponents as anti choice, anti female, religious nuts due to movies like dirty dancing , cedar house rules, jody foster's movie about roe v wade, etc etc etc.

Marketing is based on widely held beliefs, conservatives have to change widely held beliefs before any mere change in marketing can be effective.

Sadly, they're doing this with actual movies too. Alot of the "kids" movies have trailers that look like great family movies and then people go and they end up trying to indoctrinate the kids. Think "Happy Feet."

You can have your 'sucker's rally'; I'll stick with gold.

I hope that you aren't a money manager, egad.

I don't have time to read every comment on this post, so this may be repetitive, but the marketing department is talk radio and FOX news, and right now they suck. Instead of trying to sell the package to a broad audience, they are focusing on "firing up the base", which translates into developing a niche market for the equivalent of a cult movie. Sure this generates a small group of intensely loyal fans, but it doesn't get your picture the wide distribution it takes to cash in at the box office. Is it a co-incidence that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, et al are making tons of money on the current marketing strategy while the Republican Party tanks nationally, and yet these same people most strongly resist changing our marketing? I doubt it.

[...] marketing campaign and changing their hideous image and polishing up their loathed brand. Today one sociopathic winger has an idea for them. Glenn Greenwald was tweeting up [...]

Im getting so tied of the way OBAMA is treated like some freaking god he is a socialists radical freak

Bigger fish to fry? The nation has bigger fish to fry?
Conservatives want national defense. What is more important? Bush took huge hits on the war in Iraq, not because people didn't want to fight terrorists, but Bush was being portrayed as someone not fighting to win in Iraq. No one likes to support a loosing fight. We want a defense on our local borders, Bush was against it. The numbers were huge on immigration, and what republican leadership took that position on our border? The 'fence isn't done yet is it?
We didnt' have larger fish to fry, we were tired of being ignored and spit on. This listening tour is another spit in our faces. What policies will they change due to the listening their doing? The idea they have is for us to listen to them, and change to suit them. I'll be more and more tempted to sit out more elections if they keep that up.

Reagan was called mean-spirited but that is not what voters saw. He was very clear about his policies, a battle-hardened debater, but he never looked like a "zealot" or "hater".

Republicans did well with Bush in 2002 and 2004 because Bush also came across as decent and caring. Consider his mix of convictions: socially conservative, third way on the economy, strong on defense. Conservatives don´t like to hear it, but this has proven a winning combination. He really meant what he said about compassionate conservatism. And like it or not, Bush was a winner.

Obama could basically say whatever he wanted and scoop up gullible centrists because the media would cover for him and his radical base would never abandon him for running briefly to the right.

Any modern Republican trying to satisfy the right on immigration or small government will come across as mean-spirited. And if he doesn´t conservatives will abandon him and he will lose. But to implement our principles you have to have power first. That´s the basic dilemma.

That´s what the heart says, but you have to win power first and that is not how you win power.
The left does not decide election and they are not your target group. The people are.

[...] love-it essay by Leigh Scott posted on Big Hollywood, Conservatives Need to Fire the Marketing Department. I’ve been wondering what is wrong with RNC for the last few months. Why have they not been [...]

[...] honor of Hollywood’s current trend, I offer you not a new blog entry but instead a sequel to my last post.  My little entry had some legs and even garnered a response on the extremist and out of touch web [...]

[...] Free Speech to Terrorism Vets On The Watch: Nuts Are At It Again Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: Conservatives Need to Fire the Marketing Department CBS News, Econwatch: It’s A Good Time To Work For Uncle [...]

[...] Easy As ABC…President Obama’s Official “State-Run” Media Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: Conservatives Need to Fire the Marketing Department Pam Meister, Big Hollywood: The Imus Standard: Should Letterman Be Fired? Jenn Q. Public: David [...]

[...] Project Their Biases Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: Politicians Are What’s Wrong With Politics and Conservatives Need to Fire the Marketing Department The Other McCain: ‘Questions that any sane person would ask’ The Daley Gator: How does [...]

[...] Get *Some* Health Care?’ Vets On The Watch: Nuts Are At It Again Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: Conservatives Need to Fire the Marketing Department Hot Air Green Room: CNN Creates Misleading Headlines to Save Obama’s Credibility The TIW Blog: [...]