are those first time voters who may be completely unaware of Obama’s infanticide record in the Illinois Senate. I talked to a young Hispanic girl who is now outraged at The One over this after viewing Jill Stanek’s video. All I said to the girl was you should google Obama Infanticide and Jill took care of the rest.

Great read, David!

The mythology of moderates is hand-and-glove with the Socialists’ “Rs are extreme” propaganda. Every time we can demonstrate how extreme the Ds are, we will put another notch in our Conservative belts.

Conservatives will reap from the Democrat calamity on fronts of prosperity, security and individual freedom.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Most people are nonideological and apolitical; uninvolved as you state. There is only a tiny sliver of moderates who care enough to try to wield influence over the GOP and the political process.

Some politicos surround themselves with like minded people and assume all people care about politics. Most people don’t. Most people don’t care and don’t know and what they do know is largely framed by Hollywood, academia and the media. Therein lies our problem.

Sure, in the long course of the culture war we need to better engage and educate these people, but it’s not something that can be cured in eighteen months.

If you poll them, they will say they like lower taxes, more freedom, strong national security and responsible government. They will also say that we need to protect the environment, help the poor, celebrate diversity and protect social security. It’s all how these issues are framed. We can’t assume that they are all conservatives at heart just waiting for their fearless leader.

But there is no mythical army of determined moderates. There are determined liberals, who surreptitiously use their cultural sway to influence the clueless masses and there are determined conservatives who are busy fighting each other, while waiting for the next great communicator to save them.

The Meghan McCains of the world want us to try to win over the uninvolved by humoring their ignorance – don’t contradict them, don’t try to educate them, for God’s sake (sorry – McCain doesn’t want Him mentioned anymore) don’t tell them why you’re right and “they” (Democrats) are wrong …. if Mr. Ignorant thinks Bill Clinton made his 401K grow or W made it shrink (or that social conservatives want to create a theocracy because Jon Stewart says so), then that has to be accepted as “Truth”.

Horse Hockey – if Republicans are unwilling to have an argument, they’re unworthy of governing.

But, I think there’s a fifth group who want to be involved but don’t have the right credentials to be given a fair hearing because they don’t have the requisite educational level, socioeconomic level, or deemed unimportant by some other defining factor.

Instead of being listened to, they get talked down to. After a time of continual rebuff, they begin to wonder what’s the point of beating their heads against granite walls since all they get from it is a concussion, then apathy sets in, and nothing changes.

to describe this voter. The biased media love these people. A dummied down USA. Product of over indulgence coupled with zero responsibilty.

I don’t understand how the ridiculously simplistic myth that various moderates and leftists put forward as truth have survived for so long. Critical examination reveals many details avoided by proponents of this theory, such as the rising and lowering importance of various issues, political trends, the differing merits of voters in terms of time, money, and effort (partisans are much more generous with all of these than moderates), and those who are unaffiliated, but have concrete political views (e.g., religious social democrats and libertarians), and yes, the uninvolved, to name a few.

Long-term, it is a much better strategy to educate about the positives of one’s message and drying up sources of funding for political opponents. These are either ignored, or seen as “old politics”, by proponents of the “Moderate Myth”, and yet it is still followed blindly. Is it any wonder that libertarian-conservatism has been losing ground for so long, when one of the parties has already conceded the war, if not necessarily individual battles, to the enemy?

You are absolutely right. I have noticed some Ning groups out there which have experienced an influx of previously uninformed people who are angry about the bailouts. And GOP Senators who voted for bailouts want us to move left???? Hello? They know their butts are in big trouble with their bailout votes and their only option is to talk about SOMETHING ELSE — so what are they all doing? They are saying we should “move away from social issues” — code for saying we should take a liberal POSITION on social issues because no one is idiotic enough to think we can actually go through a campaign without taking a position on social issues. They are trying to appeal to libertarians who are opposed to the spending but are also opposed to restrictions on social issues. They’re appealing to the only thread they have left to hold onto politically — libertarian disdain for social issues. It’s obvious! But they’ll find out that this isn’t going to work. In case you haven’t noticed, Libertarians are not generally stupid people.

(For the record, I am not a Libertarian; neither do I play one on tv, but I think I am clear on what they profess to believe.)

Yes, there are uneducated voters out there and we need to use this time to make our case to them……….and let the Libertarians decide whether or not they want to “move away from social issues” for the sake of cutting this government down to size. Let that be their choice, not the choice of the GOP elitists who are desperately trying to hold onto power.

is what IS right and wrong. Not just our perceptions of it. People talk about “wedge issues” like abortion and gay rights like it is just a matter of what the polling of the week shows about it.

We cannot be the party of the polls of the week. We need to stick with the RIGHT positions, because that is the one constant. If we chase last weeks polls, then we are last nights party.

If we stick where we know that we are right, then we just wait for the people to come to us. It will not hurt, of course, as the OP points out, to help the process along by educating people.

And here’s the best part. We don’t need to convince anyone of anything. WE ARE RIGHT. All we need to do is give them the tools to understand the way things are, and they will come to us. No convincing necessary.

(And, yes, I know it isn’t quite as easy as all that. But, darn it, it should be.)

I’d add a fifth group, that be Radical Moderates. The would be the RMSPers.

They are the ones that are not content to hold different opinions than the rest of the party but insist on challenging the base of our party at every turn. Disagreement and debate won’t work for them. They spend every waking moment plotting ways to undermine Conservatives and the party. Antagonism is the order of the day. They suck up to Liberals in the Democrat Party while they use the most vile and dispensable dames and epithets the Dems use to describe conservatives!

Members of this gtoup would include Chaffee, Specter, (both gone thank GOD), Snowe, Collins, Christie Todd Whitman, William Weld, Pete Wilson and others of the same ilk.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Never really thought of it in the way you described but you are dead on with your description of the ‘uninvolved’ voter. Those are the ones who voted en masse for ‘The One’ and yet when you talk with them about the bailout…or global warming…or spending…or Chrysler/GM…they are the most persuadable because a) they’re a blank slate; and, b) they are, in my experience, innately conservative in their outlooks on life.

Great job of crystalizing this!

We have been told that there are three major food groups in the political spectrum in this country; the liberal left, the conservative right and the largest group, the moderate middle.

Glen Beck has formulated this differently and he repeats it on almost every show and I agree with him.

He puts totalitarian government on the left, anarchy on the right, the Founding Fathers well to the righ of center on that scale, the American people slightly to the right of center, and both the Republican and Democrat Parties well to the left of center towards totalitarianism. The only real difference between the two parties is controlling how the huge amount of money gets spent.

I think this formulation presents a real opportunity for one party to step away from the left end of the scale towards the American people and that would include the uninvolved.

Excellent analysis of the electoral population. “Uninvolved” is a great word to use on this target group, and they deserve their own name.

I agree with the analysis pointing out the great number of uninvolved. However, I do think the moderates decide elections simply because they are involved. But, I really believe the case was not made for the right in these past two election cycles, 2006 and 2008. The Republicans had gotten so used to being generous they forgot their mandate. The left was able to make the case they had a plan. We now need to make a plan and that plan should not be in the mushy middle. It should boldly make the case that our freedom and rights are being undermined. It should strike at the heart of this tremendous waste of dollars. I think the case needs to be made to persuade and not assuade the moderate voters. They are a field ripe for the picking. I think they are really getting scared, now that the Democratic Party has shown its hand. We cannot forget that politicing is more about persuading than it is about policies. The policies will follow if the principles are clear.