Soap Box

When I hear political strategists talk about the future of the party they represent it's seldom about the true substance of the policies their party is putting forth, but about the voting public's perception of the policies their party is putting forth.

"If the candidate takes that position he will appear too harsh, he should soften his stand to attract the independents."

"If the president continues pushing that piece of legislation he's going to lose support of the moderates in Congress."

There's an old and very true saying that goes, "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything." Have these politicians gone so far over to the dark side that they don't even know what the truth is? Have their calluses grown so thick that they think their public service starts and ends with their re-election?

Do they not have any kind of a core beliefs at all, a line of commitment they refuse to step over, a place in their hearts where expediency stops and conscience takes over?

Time after time we have sent good people to Congress, people who were committed to the opinions and well being of their constituents only to fall prey to the siren call of power, bought off by the seduction of White House invitations or becoming a member in good standing of the powerful establishment, selling little pieces of their souls for the better committee appointment or their national party's help in the next election.

I am neither a constitutional scholar nor a man of letters, who has studied the history of politics, but I speak from the position of blue-collar linage and street level opinion, but it's from my point of view.

Why have two parties if they're both going to stand for the same thing, if they're both going to have the same philosophy and march to the same drummer.

It appears to me that the Republicans are doing their best to become "Democrat Lite", blaming their failure in the last election on being too conservative, for having a common sense approach to fiscal problems, alienating the entitlement society, not wholly embracing same-sex marriage, alienating the gay contingent, being too tough on abortion, alienating part of the female vote.

In my opinion, the Republicans main problems are that they are losing touch with their core constituency and suffering from poor communication skills. Many of these candidates live in a different world than the voters they are trying to attract to the polls.

Their candidates are usually either jaded politicians who haven't lived among the common people in decades, someone who has existed so far above the battles people fight on a daily basis that when they try to be down to earth during the campaign season they come off as insincere.

Putting a pair of blue jeans on a man who dresses in Armani suits, rolling his shirt sleeves up, familiarizing him with a few phrases of the local vernacular and presenting him as a man of the people may look good on paper as a campaign strategy but the performance comes off as unbelievable.

I truly believe Mitt Romney is a good man, but his remark about having "cheesy grits" for breakfast was about as genuine as Larry the Cable Guy speaking French. Putting a roping saddle on a thoroughbred doesn't turn him into a quarter horse, it just makes him look uncomfortable and out of place.

The Republicans can't even turn out their base. Why is that? I believe it's apathy on the part of the voters, not apathy about America, but apathy toward the party, why vote if the Republicans are going to be just like the Democrats, if they're going to cave in every time the going gets tough and the media gets on their case.

Political parties make the mistake that voters are only attracted to looks, poise, the quick wit and sparkling personality, and to a degree they may be right. But much more than that, human beings are attracted to strength and confidence, to a strong leader, not a milksop copy of the other candidate.

In the first presidential debate Mitt Romney personified some of that strength, with the facts at his fingertips and confidence in what he was saying, he had Obama on the ropes and America knew it and liked it.

In the next debate his handlers were afraid if he attacked again he would alienate women voters and pulled him back, and he came off as weak and just another politician.
I believe that Romney lost a lot of votes and probably the election in those second and third debates when he didn't go ahead and show America the differences in being a leader and being an also-ran.

The Democrats have practically all the media support, so what's left?

Has anybody thought about actually telling the people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? The American people haven't been told the whole truth in so long it would probably take them a while to recognize it.

I believe in my heart of hearts that if a candidate would come forth and speak the truth, not try to sugar coat the future Americans are leaving for our children and grandchildren, not try to solve a decades old immigration problem with a series of cosmetic Band-Aids, would emphasize the nation's absolute need for the strongest military in the world, and just how damning and dangerous the national debt is and the fallacy of big government, someone who would speak in the language of the common man, not taking for granted that everybody who was listening to him could understand the complex economic and foreign policy terminology so common place to their lexicon, then I believe the American public would be energized like they haven't been energized in decades and respond.

We need a leader, and if the Republican Party ever wants to win another election, they'd better stop nattering like first graders in a sand box, start embracing the things their base believes in and danged well go and find someone who can articulate those principles.

Do I make myself clear?

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels​