The Republican Party’s National Committee has decided that they will double down on their anti gay stand, just at a time when the nation is rapidly accepting gays as equals in every way, including the civil right to marry.
This is a losing proposition, as within the next ten years, the GOP will look like a dinosaur culturally, as the nation is moving away from narrow mindedness, prejudice, discrimination, and the bullying that goes on, encouraged by lack of concern for and respect for the rights of those with a different sexual orientation. And gay marriage is being considered right now by the Supreme Court, and no matter what they decide in June, the momentum is with movement in that direction.
Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois are the only two sitting GOP Senators who have endorsed gay marriage, although former Senators Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Dan Evans of Washington, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Pressler of South Dakota, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, and Olympia Snowe of Maine have also backed gay marriage.
A number of College Republican groups, and s few Republican members of the House of Representatives. along with prominent former Republicans Governors, including Jon Huntsman, Tom Ridge, Jesse Ventura, Tom Kean, James Thompson, William Weld, and Christie Todd Whitman have also supported gay marriage.
Additionally, many other non elected Republicans have signed statements calling on the Supreme Court to accept gay marriage as constitutional everywhere in America!
When we look back by 2025 to 2030, the Republican Party will have paid a heavy price for their refusal to adjust to changing times, and to their decision to allow organized religion to dictate social policy, in a nation that is based on the Founding Fathers’ promotion of the separation of church and state!
Am old enough to remember when this lifestyle was considered perverted, if progressive trends continue it is only natural that in the future other sick social perversions will be considered trendy and acceptable.
Hello Dave,
To employ the rules of “Logical Argumentation†I would point out that what you have presented to support your argument is a “Divertive Argument†and have negated your point right from the start. A debate judge has just penalized you and ultimately the lost in the debate.
Now by taking your pitfall argument, I just simply point out the deficiencies of your argument.
Yes Dave and I too am old enough to remember when a black boy would be refused to have his hair cut at a local barber shop because the barber shop’s clients were white. This was an accepted status quo of the time. After the Civil Rights Act was signed into law in 1964 by President Johnson, many could be heard making the simular, if not exact, same verbiage comments of, “If progressive trends continue it is only natural that in the future other sick social perversions will be considered trendy and acceptable†destroying the “Southern Tradition†standards.
It was George Wallace who coined the popular phrases still used today of “Pin Head Liberals,†and “Big Government†referring to the John Kennedy’s administration who pushed forth Civil Rights which was counter intuitive of his values at the time. LBJ was quoted when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “We have just lost the South for a least a generation.†Good to see you keeping up that time honored prediction.
I also remember that if a white woman traveled across state lines with a black man, she was charged with prostitution and he was charged as being a pimp…even if they had a marriage license. Just another substandard and repressive religious “Southern Tradition†standard.
I also remember if a black man did not step off the sidewalk to allow a white person to pass he could be arrested for basically being “aggressively obstructive.” “You know….Damn Uppity (N word)â€
So to conclude, your repressive statement will be viewed as arcane and despicable as we now look at what I have given as examples and was accepted as being the standards of that time. As everything now posted on the web can be there for decades if not hundreds of years, you will be viewed as a person whose viewpoints and comments to be despised.
Prejustice in any form is just that, Prejustice. Thank you for exposing this example so I may present this as a lesson to others with open minds to follow.
The great German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) well noted:
“All truth passes through three stages….
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Thanks, Engineer of Knowledge, for bringing your intelligent, reasoned discussion to how prejudice and narrow mindedness have always been seen for what they are over time. I could not have said it better!
Since we are talking about the progressive social agenda I would like to congratulate Kirsten Powers, a tolerant liberal, for pointing out media hypocrisy and how it hides the truth about abortion industry. ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/ )
“Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News’ Brian Williams intoned, “A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh,” as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed — a major human rights story if there ever was one — doesn’t make the cut.
You don’t have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” It’s about basic human rights.
The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.”
What does racial discrimination have to do with the definition of marriage?
Juan, we are talking about human rights, including the right to marry who one loves.
Juan, I never have supported killing a child that is fully formed and comes out alive, and that is totally wrong, without any question. But to outlaw abortion will not stop it, and will cause the death of many women!
Ron: My point on the Gosnell trial was about the media hypocrisy,not about our debate on abortion. Also I never thought you believed that late term abortion was right. In any event remember how reporters asked every pro-life individual in America (or so it seemed back in October) to respond to Todd Akin’s stupid remarks on rape? Where are the questions for prominent pro-choice activists and pols on their take on Gosnell? Nonexistent! Or how about this take to have a national discussion on late term abortion? “President Obama worked against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act back in the Illinois Senate. He said he thought it was unnecessary and that he was worried it would undermine Roe. How has the Gosnell case affected his thinking on protections for children such as the ones Gosnell is accused of killing?” Am I exaggerating? Is this not news worthy? Or are only the issues that give impulse to the liberal agenda news worthy?
Juan, I agree that it is news worthy without question!
As for gay marriage I think my position is best explained by Thomas Sowell’s pen so I will make use of the copy-paste! LOL!
“The “equal protection of the laws” provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions. When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.
In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law’s business.
Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else’s approval.
Why is marriage considered to be any of the law’s business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.
In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.
Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other — and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.
In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet “gay marriage” advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.
They argue against a “ban on gay marriage” but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.
Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.
There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.
Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as “a pregnant couple” or references to “spouses” rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.
Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.
In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.
Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?
And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?”
Dave Martin writes: “[I am] old enough to remember when this lifestyle was considered perverted, if progressive trends continue it is only natural that in the future other sick social perversions will be considered trendy and acceptable.”
You mean like unnecessary wars!?
I anticipate that Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Maine’s Susan Collins, and New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte will be the next three Republican U.S. senators to announce support for marriage equality. Collins, whose Senate seat is on the schedule for 2014, is probably having her staff look at the internal polling to inform her when to announce. Murkowski is apparently one of those Republicans who isn’t a sickened backwards type like many of her colleagues (especially from the plains and south). And Ayotte has to consider that, when Democrats win presidential elections, her home state carries; which means, if she wants to win re-election to a second term, she’ll have to get on board with N.H.’s supportive voting electorate.
D, again, you hit right on the mark! 🙂 I love your description of Murkowski as NOT “a sickened backwards type like many of her colleagues (especially from the plains and the south).” That is precisely the problem of the GOP, that they represent rural, backward states who are still in the 19th century in so many ways, but with few people and lots of land, and they are still fighting to put us back in the “good old days”, before America was urban and diverse, and before slavery was ended by that damn radical named Lincoln!
The rest of the nation is moving forward into the 21st century, but is being held back by the prejudice and narrow mindedness of the “heartland”! And sadly, gerrymandering in the House and the fact that the US Senate favors these rural states and their ability to prevent progress is a troubling issue for the long term future and advancement of America!
Excellent article about how the Republican Party are gradually becoming a regional party based in the South.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112365/why-republicans-are-party-white-people#
Princess Leia, this article from the NEW REPUBLIC summarizes the reality of the GOP in 2013, a party representing the past which is gone, and failing to deal with the future of the country, so they are doomed to failure long term, and at the rate they are refusing to accept reality, very possibly in the short term! Thanks for pointing it out!
Many ideas presented as “new†are just rehashes of old ideas that have been tried before — and have failed before. So it is no surprise that the recent “Growth and Opportunity Project†report to the Republican National Committee is a classic example of what previous generations called “me too†Republicanism.
“Me too†Republicans think that the key to winning elections is to do more of what the Democrats are doing. In effect, they say “me too†on issues such as immigration in hopes of gaining more new votes than they lose by betraying their existing supporters.
Republicans’ election problems have been at the national level, not at the state level, where a majority of the governors are Republicans. Romney was as mushy a moderate as Senator John McCain was before him — and as many other Republican losers in presidential elections have been, going all the way back to the 1940s. The only Republican candidate who might fit the charge of being a complete conservative was Ronald Reagan, who won two landslide elections.
When it comes to minority votes, the Democratic party is much like Eastman Kodak during the long period when it sold the vast majority of the film and cameras in the country. How did its competitors manage to drive Kodak into bankruptcy? Not by saying “me too†while trying to imitate Kodak and trying to outdo Kodak with better film and better film cameras. They went digital instead. But that approach requires a lot more thought than apparently went into this report. Polls and focus groups are not a substitute for thought.
Ireland is on the way to marriage equality.…
@ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/14/ireland-hold-gay-marriage-referendum
United States of America, never having lead the way on marriage equality, trails yet another country. But it will happen for the LGBT community in the U.S.
Juan writes: “‘Me too’ Republicans think that the key to winning elections is to do more of what the Democrats are doing. In effect, they say ‘me too’ on issues such as immigration in hopes of gaining more new votes than they lose by betraying their existing supporters.”
The Republicans won presidential elections in the 1970s by a minimum of R+7.26 (1988) and 426 electoral votes (1988) which means, in 1972, 1980, and 1984, the national margins and electoral-votes were greater. At the time, the party also carried nationally the female vote. Important to note that, given whenever there is a gender gap, Republicans win the support of males before females. (Democrats do the opposite.) George W. Bush, in 2000, failed to garner the popular vote but pulled through in the Electoral College. In 2004, he had an increase (common with incumbents re-elected to a second term) but won nationally by just R+2.46 and 286 electoral votes; meaning he also didn’t nationlly win over the female vote.
This is not a party in touch with America. But what they are trying to do is assess how to once again win presiential elections. Your claim, Juan, that the Rs, if they were to get on board with some of what is being represented by the Ds, would “lose by betraying their existing supporters” is not accurate. (Look at Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. Look at Bill Clinton in the 1990s. They were their only party’s two-term presidents in different realigning presidential periods.) It is also mute, given that the base of the current Rs do not have the numbers to pull them to victory nationally, and that very much includes the outcome on the electoral map.
It was mentioned on MSNBC’s election-night coverage for 2012 by John McCain’s top campaign strategist from Election 2008: In 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush won approximately 60 percent of whites nationally and that yielded carriage of 40 states and 426 electoral votes. Yes, that’s already been noted by men. And in 2012, Mitt Romney also won approximately 60 percent of whites nationally and garnered 24 states and 206 electoral votes.
The country is changing. That goes on realigning presidential periods. I am among those who believe the 2008 one realigned to favor the Democrats. The previous one, in 1968, favored the Republicans. And what typically happes to the party newly established at a disadvantage is that they not only fell out favor by losing touch … they take quite some time to figure out how to succeed again in competing. That’s what going on, Juan, and I don’t think you’ve failed to recognize that. But what you have failed to recognize is that the No. 1 problem with this current Republican Party is … the party.
“It was mentioned on MSNBC’s election-night coverage for 2012 by John McCain’s top campaign strategist from Election 2008: ”
That was Steve Schimdt.
There were valid social and heath reasons for not approving of perverted sexual behaviors over mans civilized history the engineer disregards them it seems as viewed through his racial bias.
Republicans lose the minority vote because they don’t know how to fight Democrats with the same weapons Democrats use. They should fight fire with fire. Appeal to emotions and moral outrage not reason or logic as they have been doing. They have never emotionally appealed to the following tragedy. During Obama’s four years in office, African Americans – middle-class African Americans – lost half their net worth as a result of the collapse of the housing market. That’s one hundred billion dollars in personal assets that disappeared from the pockets of African Americans because of a 25-year Democratic campaign to remove loan requirements for home-buyers. Yet in the 2012 presidential campaign, Republicans were too polite to mention it. The fingerprints of Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barney Frank were all over the subprime mortgage crisis. The campaign to remove loan requirements for African American and other minority borrowers started with Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act. It snookered thousands of poor black and Hispanic Americans into buying homes they couldn’t afford, which they then lost. How traumatic is the loss of one’s home? By securitizing the failed mortgages, Democratic bundlers on Wall Street who had poured $100 million into the 2008 Obama campaign made tens of millions off the misery of those who lost their homes. In other words, with the help of Clinton, Frank and Obama, Wall Street Democrats made massive profits off the backs of poor black and Hispanic Americans. But Republicans were too polite (stupid) to mention it. Here was a missed opportunity to neutralize Democrat attacks on Republicans as the party of the rich and exploiters of the poor. It was an opportunity to drive a giant wedge through the Democratic base.
The bottom line is this: If Republicans want to persuade minorities they care about them, they have to stand up for them; they have to defend them; and they have to show them that Democrats are playing them for suckers, exploiting them, oppressing them, and profiting from their suffering. Fight fire with fire!
Large populations of the African American and Hispanic poor are concentrated in America’s inner cities – Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, St.Louis, Harlem, South Central Los Angeles. In these inner cities the unemployment rates are off the charts, the school systems so corrupt and ineffective that half the children drop out before they graduate and half those who do graduate are functionally illiterate. They will never get a decent job or a shot at the American dream. In these inner cities, every city council and every school board and every school district are 100% controlled by Democrats and have been for more than 70 years. Everything that is wrong with the inner cities and their schools that policy can affect, Democrats are responsible for. Democrats have their boot heels on the necks of millions of poor African American and Hispanic children and are crushing the life out of them every year. But again Republicans are too polite to mention it.
In the middle of the 2012 campaign, a teachers union strike shut down the schools in Chicago, Obama’s home town. The issue was not pay but the union’s refusal to allow teacher rewards to be connected to teacher performance. African American and Hispanic children were the true victims of the determination to protect bad teachers and not to reward good ones. Yet Republicans ignored the strike, and never put a face on its victims. Only Chris Christie mentioned the issue slightly at the Convention, but not by name, but by the abstract words of educational establishment – “…the educational establishment will always put themselves ahead of children.” And that’s all he said! The issues are there – accountability, standards and rewards for teacher performance. The policy is there. But the moral outrage is missing! The victims are missing and the culprits aren’t named. It’s not the “educational establishment†that’s ruining the lives and blocking the opportunities of African American and Hispanic children. It’s the Democrats – they are the educational establishment in every failing public school district. The Democrat teachers unions and the Democrat Party that supports them are destroying the lives of African American and Hispanic students whose parents are too poor to put them in private schools – the same private schools where Democrat legislators and union leaders send their own children.
Democrats will fight to the death to prevent poor parents from getting vouchers to provide their children with the same education that well-off Democratic legislators provide for theirs. This is a moral atrocity. This is an issue to get angry about and mobilize constituencies over. This is an issue that could drive a Gibraltar-size wedge through the Democratic base. But Republicans again are too polite to do that.
This is merely the most obvious atrocity that Democrats are committing against America’s impoverished minorities. Subverting family structures through a misconceived welfare system, encouraging food stamp dependency, providing incentives to bring into this world massive numbers of children who have no prospect of a decent life just to earn a welfare dollar. These are the corrupt fruits of Democratic welfare policies which are spiraling out of control. But Republicans criticize these programs as “wasteful.†No! They need to start attacking them as destructive, as attacks on the human beings who are ensnared by them.
The way for Republicans to show they care about minorities is to defend them against their oppressors and exploiters, which in every major inner city in America without exception are Democrats. Democrats run the welfare and public education systems; they have created the policies that ruin the lives of the recipients of their handouts. It’s time that Republicans started to hold Democrats to account; to put them on the defensive and take away the moral high ground, which they now occupy illegitimately. Government welfare is not just wasteful; it is destructive.The public school system in America’s inner cities is not merely ineffective; it is racist and criminal.
Because Democrats regard politics as war conducted by other means, they seek to demonize and destroy their opponents as the enemies of progress, of social justice and minority rights. Republicans can only counter these attacks by turning the Democrats’ guns around — by exposing them as the enforcers of injustice, particularly to minorities and the poor, the exploiters of society’s vulnerable, and the reactionary proponents of policies that have proven bankrupt and destructive all over the world.
Juan,
That’s not only tripe it’s also projection. Your attempt to ignore the damage of the George W. Bush and his administration, with an unnecessary war in Iraq which also brought us the economic meltdown of 2008, is dishonest.
The Republican party’s problem is … their party. That very much includes the platform of the party. And that is being rejected by, as singled out by you, Hispanics and African-Americans. And especially by women … nationwide.
Any other continued dancing around addressing the key points of the issue will not succeed in deflection. You can bury your head in the sand all you want; but no one else should have to do the same. And it isn’t going to solve the electoral problems of this current Republican party.
The housing bubble was not brought on by the wars. In any event, aren’t wars spending? Isn’t deficit spending what Democrats love and say will bring prosperity? So which one is it?
In any event, after voters re-elected an administration that added 5 trillion dollars to the nation’s debt, left 23 million Americans unemployed, surrendered Iraq to America’s enemy Iran, and enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to gain control of the largest country in the Middle East, the one lesson Republicans should agree on is that elections are driven by emotions, not reason. Moreover, when it comes to mobilizing emotions, Democrats beat Republicans hands down.
Worse, Republicans appear unable to learn from their losses. Year after year, Democrats accuse Republicans of the same imaginary crimes waging wars on women, not caring about minorities, and inflicting pain on working Americans to benefit the wealthy. And year after year, Republicans have no effective responses to neutralize these attacks. Or to take the battle to the enemy’s camp.
In the 2012 election, as usual, Democrats attacked Republicans as defenders of the wealthy who are not paying their “fair share.†Republicans responded by deploring “class warfare rhetoric,†which does not answer the charge that Republicans are defending the wealthy and are uncaring. There are plenty of answers to these libels but Republicans don’t have them.
“Caring†is not one among many issues in an election. It is the central one. Since most policy issues are complicated, voters want to know above everything else just whom they can trust to sort out the complexities and represent them. Before voters cast their ballots for policies or values they want a candidate or party that cares about them.
The Republican response to the Democrats’ attack (that’s “class warfare rhetoricâ€) doesn’t work because it’s an abstraction. “Class warfare rhetoric†has no human face; it’s about a political style. Criticizing the wealthy for “not paying their fair share†is a direct attack on an easily identified target, which is why so many wealthy taxpayers – including entertainment figures who are normally Democrats –were outraged by the slander. More importantly, the Democrats’ attack on the rich is an emotional appeal to those who are not rich. It tells them that someone cares about them.
Using the term “class warfare†is a polite way of discussing a problem, a habit Republicans seem unable to break. It avoids finger pointing – naming an adversary and holding him accountable. But elections are adversarial. They are about defeating opponents. Elections are necessarily about “us†and “them.†Democrats are as adept at framing “them,†as Republicans are not. Democrats know how to incite envy and resentment, distrust and fear, and to direct these volatile emotions towards their Republican opponents. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy complaining about the style of the Democrats’ argument.
The only way to confront the emotional campaign that Democrats wage in every election is through an equally emotional campaign that puts the aggressors on the defensive; that attacks them in the same moral language, identifying them as the bad guys, the oppressors of women, children, minorities and the middle class, that takes away from them the moral high ground which they now occupy. You can’t confront an emotionally based moral argument with an intellectual analysis. Yet this is basically and almost exclusively what Republicans do.
Juan:
That is a failed posting from you.
The housing bubble was not representative of 100 percent of the economic meltdown of 2008.
You fail to address the nation’s debt without crediting the commander in chief who brought it on: George W. Bush and his administration, with their pet project that was an unnecessary war against and in Iraq (which did not have “weapons of mass destruction”).
The Republicans’ war on women is magnified in state governments with, as great example, abortion. Those against abortion use religion as their argument. Same as they do with their opposition to marriage equality. Never mind the United States constitution. So, there’s nothing imagined with that; it’s real.
In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney spoke the truth with what he was all about with seeking the presidency and what he thinks of the “47 percent” who won’t vote for him. It was refreshing. You whining about that is silly, given that what you may as state is that you hate that Romney gave enough ammunition to destroy himself and President Obama and his campaign used that information against Romney. It’s silly of you. Do you think any political party should lay down for the other one … when, at the same time, you attempt to give Republicans advice on how to win?
All the rest of what you wrote isn’t important. You once again fail to address that the Republicans’ problem is … their party. Their party is anti-woman, anti-LGBT, anti-African-American, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian-American, and I’d even go far as to say they’re against children, with their education, unless they can fixate on them as fetuses.
So, when are you going to finally recognize that the current Republican Party … sucks? That the current platform of the party … sucks? My guess is that you’ll continue doing your dance.
I never said the bubble was 100% representative of the meltdown. The meltdown came because oil went up from $30 to over $120 the barrel in 2006-07, that in turn created a recession which in the context of that housing market caused the bubble to implode, thus came the meltdown. If there would not have been a previous recession the bubble probably would have continued for a while.
I say the problem is the Party because it does not fight PERIOD! Of course no party should lay down for the other one. The problem with the Republicans party is that they fight with wrong weapons and don’t go after Democrats on an emotional level like the Dems do. As for the platform, do you really believe the millions of people who voted actually read the platform? Good grief! As for Bush, as a conservative I am no fan of his because of his big government spending. And you cannot say conservatives did not speak out against this during his term because they did.
What Republicans have to do is counter attack your false attacks on us and expose the Democrats for what they are , for what their policies do , for the damage they cause us minorities in the country.
D, thanks for your brilliant debate points and ideas! I know that I can count on you to overcome the propaganda of the Right! 🙂
Propaganda? Spoken from a Democrat? From someone who worships the Democrat Party? The Party of “Paul Ryan wants to kill grandma”! From that party? From the party of Obama “Republicans want dirty air, dirty water, unsafe food” , “Republicans are making us choose between curing a child and treating autism” and Biden “Republicans want to put you all back in chains”!? From that party? The party of emotional simpleton propaganda campaigns? Give me a break!
Republicans must not only appeal to boring statistical facts but more important to an emotional campaign to unseat Democrats from their self promoted superior moral high ground lie. Fight fire with fire.