Campaign Slogan...Input?

Published on January 14, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I'm developing my Campaign slogan, and I'd appreciate your input.

The slogan is "Family. Freedom. Future", and I plan to elaborate on each with the following (EXTREMELY rough drafts) in my literature:

"Family: We have seen a de-emphasis, if not an outright war, on family values deemed traditional up until about thirty years ago. We have broadened definitions of abuse and neglect to prohibit traditional forms of discipline and to criminalize poverty among families. We need a legislature that will work to restore the rights of the family, to stand up to a government that continually and unconstitutionally abuses its power by removing the right to discipline, educate, and instruct one's own children in a way that they see fit.

Freedom: We have watched our freedoms erode gradually and systematically. Freedom of religion has been sacrificed at the altar of political correctness, as has freedom of speech. Our right to keep and bear arms has been challenged by gun control initiatives. Our rights to be secure in our homes from illegal search and seizure, and against self incrimination have been casualties of a government that insists that these sacrifices are necessary to conduct a war on terror. Our freedom of choice in education has been denied through the inefficient and too often ineffective public school system. We need a legislature that will recognize your liberties as GOD GIVEN rights, as did our founding fathers, and who will work to consider the rights of all Texans in their legislation.

Future: We have sacrificed future prosperity for immediate luxury by confiscating private earnings and taking them away for the "common good". We believe that we need to educate our children for the future in the most effective and most efficient way possible, and that a responsible legislature will look to all viable solutions to create a promising future for ALL Texas children. With the aging of the baby boomers, we recognize the need to create a viable and affordable public transportation system, and believe that we must explore ways to create an inter- and intra-city public transportation in the Texas panhandle that is financed through private and corporate contributions, and not dependent on the whims of the Texas legislature or increased taxation."

That's what I have so far. Feel free to comment.

Comments

Shovelheat

on Jan 14, 2006

Sounds good the way it is. Wished I could vote there....

Dr Guy

on Jan 14, 2006

I agree with Shovel. Now make it a button. Great start! Keep it short and simple! And keep it up!

KellyW0498

on Jan 14, 2006

I must have missed your official announcement, so a belated congratulations! I wish you luck and like everyone else I would vote for you if I lived there.

So far sounds good! Keep us up to date.

lifehappens

on Jan 15, 2006

Just personal thought here. nothing wrong with content but maybe the order in delivery. You have...

We have seen a de-emphasis, if not an outright war, on family values

...

We need a legislature that will work to restore the rights of the family

You start with a big negative and progress to a solution. I personally hate when polititians are running a campaign on the fact that our society sucks and they are the one to fix it.

My suggestion: Pick the positive first. (and fill in blah blah blah with your own wonderfully worded stuff)

IE: We believe in family values. We believe we should have the RIGHT to raise our children....blah blah blah. But there is a war on our beliefs....blah blah blah.....Here is the solution.

I honestly feel that most people are basically content. FI you run out and tell them that life sucks becasue of all these reasons, they will tune you out before you get to the part where you stand up for what they believe.

But that's just me.

lifehappens

on Jan 15, 2006

ps maybe your district has a high IQ avg but here in hood country, they don't like having to decipher your message too much....maybe a version with small words? I'm not knocking the general population, but people tend to be stupid sometimes.....

terpfan1980

on Jan 15, 2006

I'm good with what you have there Gid, though I think Lifehappen's has made a few positive suggestions.

Best of luck either way, getting the message through to the voters is perhaps the hardest thing you'll have to do, aside from competing against the bias that exists towards either of the two mainstream party candidates.

Leauki

on Jan 15, 2006

If I were you I'd try not to refer to legislation I don't agree with as "unconstitutional".

It makes you sound like a sore loser or worse like somebody who thinks he knows all the answers and runs only because no central committee made him general secretary of the state.

You might also want to avoid repeating the statements Libertarians would vote for you anyway and pay more attention to those voters who tend to vote against people like you.

Don't mention gun rights all the time! It makes you sound like a gun nut to those not interested in the subject.

Your argument for the private public transportation system is good.

I like your religion argument. I could imagine that there are many voters in the area who like their Christianity. Make sure you emphasise the inherent tolerance of your point of view. I can imagine that voters will want to vote for somebody religious if it also makes them feel tolerant (the "our Jewish brothers" trick, you talk about how all all religions can live together in peace while demonstrating that atheists are the only interruption).

As I said before, I would vote for you. Not because I support Libertarians, but because I think I think Texas could fare worse than with a religious and smart MP who can actually write coherent texts.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 15, 2006

If I were you I'd try not to refer to legislation I don't agree with as "unconstitutional".

I see your point, leauki, but legislation that allows a government agent to enter your house without a warrant, seize your children and property without due process, and force you to comply with their agenda without a criminal finding of guilt is pretty soundly unConstitutional (not coincidental, almost every such case where parents have pushed their rights into federal courts has been decidedly against this kind of action). It's not just a matter of disagreement, but of criminality on the part of the government agents, and, while I can see not being abrasive, I want to make that pretty clear. Any suggestions in that direction?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 15, 2006

You start with a big negative and progress to a solution. I personally hate when polititians are running a campaign on the fact that our society sucks and they are the one to fix it.

I have to give some thought about this. I can see pros and cons to both sides.

One thing I want to establish is that I am a person who is not afraid to take a stand. I am running against an entrenched incumbent, who, although he has run unopposed for 8 of his 9 terms, has strong local support. I need to establish that our positions are distinctly different without attaacking HIM directly.

I will look it over closely, though, because your point has merit as far as sentence structure is concerned. Lemme give it some thought.

(By the way, this is exactly the sort of input I was hoping for...all of you).

kingbee

on Jan 15, 2006

if you were running for a ju office, you could get by without including your name in your slogan. as a first-time candidate who's also a relative newcomer to the district, you don't have that luxury.

it aint as if you don't have a last name for which most candidates might sell out both birth parents.

Leauki

on Jan 16, 2006

Yes, I agree. But that wasn't the point. The point is that obviously some people, if not agree, do accept that law. You can call the law a dangerous precedent, you can call it invasive, but you cannot make a claim about the constitutionality of the law. You won't convince anybody except those who already agree with you.

Many people might well disagree with the law, most will not care (because they are sure it will only affect others), but very few people want to vote for somebody who sounds like he doesn't propose a change but instead sounds like he knows the truth and wants to modify the rest of the world to comply.

Consider what you said about family values: "de-emphasis, if not outright war". That's the sort of statement you want to make! It points to a problem without accusing those who caused it of evil.

"possibly dangerous, if not outright unconstitutional" sounds better than "unconstitutional". But you still might want to lose the word. "war" is a very general term and can be applied to anything, "unconstitutional" is a technical term and has a defined meaning. You do not want a discussion of your and other people's understanding of the constitution. You want change.

cactoblasta

on Jan 16, 2006

Family. Freedom. Future

It's okay, if a little bland. I didn't bother reading your arguments; hardly anyone is going to when it comes to the voting booth. The first word sounds alarm bells for me - 'family' is a word usually only used by those who seek to pursue some sort of hardline fundamentalist platform, often with an aggressively censorial bent. Personally I don't think it rings true with your libertarian platform, but if you feel it's appropriate run with it. Just beware the negative connotations.

Freedom is fine; everyone stands for freedom, so you won't face any difficulties there. Future is nice and vague and therefore eminently suitable for a political slogan. These last two I can't find anything to fault, as neither has any real meaning in political speech. They don't suggest change but future carries a connotation that there won't be stagnation (as the future is always glorious, particularly when it's a free and family future). I don't think you'll swing the young with that slogan (family is a major turn-off for me at least) but you should be able to get some support from the middle-aged and the soccer moms.

Dunno if that's any help but there's my two cents.

cactoblasta

on Jan 16, 2006

Actually maybe you should consider adding security to your slogan? It's a great meaningless buzzword, giving you all the warmth and safeness of a word like family whilst also adding the police state overtones that thrills the blue rinse crowd. I wouldn't advise it though if your demographic is socially mobile; security implies a lack of change, which they probably won't be attracted to.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 16, 2006

'family' is a word usually only used by those who seek to pursue some sort of hardline fundamentalist platform, often with an aggressively censorial bent.

cacto,

Excellent point. On a national level, that would be of some concern, but the district where I am running is an EXTREMELY conservative district where it should play well (the anti-gay marriage amendment which passed with 76% statewide, passed with a 90% majority in this district, just to give you some idea). Security is a word I will give some consideration to as well.

Point taken. I will try and work with it some more. Like I said, it's an extremely rough draft anyway.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!