Questions from RPT Vice-Chair D'rinda Randall

I recently was on X Spaces with Republican Party of Texas Vice-Chair D'rinda Randall. Her questions and my answers are below. The asterisks indicate her questions.

The Heart Behind the Book

* What inspired you to write 'The Goal Is to Win?'

Why I wrote the book and picked the title...

I wrote the book because too many grassroots candidates who have the right principles and will do right by the voters who would elect them don't understand that running for office isn't like what made them successful in their career. The nurse, the plumber, the engineer - they have great skills for that job, but running for office is a very different skillset. I wanted to ensure that they had the preparation to help them win.

I picked the title because this isn't the 1980's. Democrats hate us - swastikas on Teslas, swatting those who have influence, threatening and even injuring and trying to end us... we need to realize that it's truly all on the line. We have a peaceful means of saving Texas, the country, and the future. Let's use what the founders of the country gave us: elections.

* Was there a defining moment when you realized that conservatives needed a new kind of playbook?

There are a number of good books and good training camps out there. I just think differently, and I thought that my perspective would help people see it in a different light.

* How does your message differ from traditional campaign manuals, what makes it uniquely Texas-style and grassroots-focused?

I've worked dozens and dozens of campaigns that seemingly had no hope to win. I care only about how conservative and coachable they are... I don't stick my finger in the wind to gauge their likely election outcome.

Almost all grassroots candidates are not well known and have just a fraction of the money that their opponent has. Given that, how do they compete to win in that environment? That's a problem I want to solve, and I believe that I'm starting to solve it.

Lessons for Today's Political Climate

* We've seen how the left organizes locally with precision - what are they doing right that conservatives must start doing better?

In every seminar I give, I ask this question: which party is more likely to bring a busload of voters to the polls on election day? Every audience unanimously answers "Democrat," to which I respond, "Why isn't it us?" We're the ones who love our children, Texas values, and this country.

The left organizes. In the early Tea Party movement, we made fun of the "community organizer" who became our president. We focused on education, teaching people the Constitution. That's great - it's good to know about the Constitution, but that doesn't win elections it turns out. What wins elections is organization - bringing more people to the polls than your opponent.

I realize there is fraud. I realize that, in some ways, it feels like the odds are stacked against us. But against all odds, President Trump was re-elected.

Our opponents will try to convince us to stay home because they won't stay home. So, it's our job to get other to join us and overwhelm the vote.

* In your opinion, what are the top three mistakes local Republican campaigns make that cost them elections?

Elections are about winning. The goal is to win, after all.

I mentioned one mistake, and that is focusing on education rather than organization. We Republicans are rugged individualists who would rather be left alone. We can't afford that way of thinking when it comes to elections.

The second mistake is that too many campaigns focus on how terrible the opponent is instead of selling what the candidate will do for the voter. It's what I call the Land of Milk and Honey. President Trump certainly talked about how bad Biden and Harris were, but the theme of his every rally was Make America Great Again. That was his Land of Milk and Honey. And it wasn't just a slogan - it was an agenda. Energy independence, border security, bringing our manufacturing base back home. He sold that vision, and it attracted voters of all stripes to the polls to re-elect him. So I coach my candidates to find and sell their Land of Milk and Honey.

The third mistake is not knowing how to attract and engage volunteers. Most consultants look for blockwalkers, phone bankers, and donors. That's about it. And while those are important, everyone can play a role that leverages their strengths. Do they weld? Drive a delivery truck? Love to bake? We need to expand our idea of how to attract and engage volunteers.

* How can we build consistent momentum between election cycles, not just during campaign season?

Back when the Revolutionary War started, there were militias. In Massachusetts, they were the minutemen - ready to take action at a moment's notice.

Today, small towns have volunteer firemen who train to be effective should someone's house need saving.

I find inspiration in those examples, but I apply them to elections. Our Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." They organized, so that when Paul Revere needed to call them up, they were ready.

Likewise, we need a local standing army of voters, if you will, to multiply the vote at election time. We need to organize. All of us know about 150 people by first name who know us by first name. How many would vote with us if only we ask?

Everyone on this space has had the experience of someone coming to them before an election and asking for guidance on how to vote. They do that because they esteem us to be smart and savvy when it comes to politics. So why not leverage and accelerate that? I talk about that a lot in my seminars that I give.

Prepare to Win Series

* You and I launched 'Prepare to Win' as a hands-on training program for candidates and precinct chairs. What do you see as the biggest 'aha moment' participants experience in these sessions?

I focus on practical, doable activities that can win elections. I hear from people that those practical things I teach are a big a-ha moment, but I would say that it's really the idea that people are far more powerful than they know. We will show them how that's true.

* Why do you believe this series is essential heading into the 2026 midterms?

So many issues we've never confronted before are headed our way. From AI to establishing and embracing again law and order in our large cities to protecting families, I like to say that we get the culture we allow. We get the government we allow. We have to realize our personal stake and personal role in setting the future on the right path. Lord knows that we cannot endure weakness right now. We have to stay strong or whatever right steps we're making now will stumble and fall. Our children and grandchildren cannot afford that.

* How can someone who's never been politically active before get started - and make an immediate difference?

Every act of our life starts with a decision and commitment to that decision. That's the first step: decide to get involved. People can reach out to me, to you, to the local Republican leader whom they admire. I urge people to make an inventory of their skills, resources, and availability so that they can look for opportunities to get involved with what they're able to offer. And even if your local leadership don't seem too plugged in, you don't have to wait for permission. Just jump in. That's what I did two decades ago.

* What excites you most about our next 'Prepare to Win' workshop in Houston on January 10?

The people. I love patriots. I love their drive to protect families and wallets and culture. Let's give them tools to empower them and then watch them soar. That's exciting. When I get emails from those who have read the book or attended the seminar and I hear what they're doing next, it makes everything I do worthwhile.

Building a Winning Culture

* Your book's title is simple 'The Goal Is to Win.' What does 'winning' mean beyond election night?

I have a simple definition for freedom: it's when I can go 30 days without worrying about what the government is doing. As it is today, I can't go thirty minutes.

Winning for me means that a woman can walk her dog in her neighborhood at night without fear.
Winning means that parents know that schools are safe and that their child won't need remedial classes in college.
Winning for me means that the person who wants to start a small business can do so without hindrance from burdensome regulations and fees.

The founders were right when they craved a government for which the focus was protecting our rights. We need to limit government, not people. When we do, we're winning.

* How do we create a culture of discipline, unity, and accountability at the grassroots level?

Our principles unite us. I can walk into any room full of Republicans and say that I am for less taxation and no one disagrees. On the other hand, I can announce my endorsement of someone in office, and I just split the room to some degree. If unity is what we crave, then we have to unite around principles and not personalities.

Driving toward principles will also set the stage for discipline and accountability. It's just not about getting someone elected - it's about the freedom we win. We need to focus on that. The election should be a step toward winning freedom and protecting rights.

* What role do messaging and storytelling play in connecting with today's voters?

Messaging is how you attract volunteers and supporters. We learn and remember through stories. Both are crucial. And if we're driven by principles, then messaging and storytelling become far easier. I spend a lot of time in the book discussing that.

Leadership and Legacy

* You've trained and advised countless candidates, what qualities separate those who win from those who don't?

I look for happy warriors who understand the urgency of the times. If you're running for office and truly fighting for the people, you don't have time to travel to attend college football games - you're blockwalking. You're connecting. You sacrifice. After you win, do the other stuff. Our military, during battles, don't take time out for R&R. They focus on the mission. So I also look for that dedication.

And I can't stress enough approaching everything from the voters' perspective. The more the people feel that you are in it to win it for them, they will absorb that energy and join you.

* What's one lesson you wish every new conservative leader would take to heart before launching their campaign?

Crave the function and not the title. The greatest title even given on Earth is "Son of God," and yet Jesus washed his disciples' feet. He served. He was humble, but he knew his purpose. If you want a leadership position, be ready to serve.

* Looking ahead, how do you hope 'Prepare to Win' and your book will shape the next generation of conservative leadership in Texas?

Endless victory. And maybe one day being able to go thirty days without worrying about what the government is doing. If we can win more freedom for people, then I'll be satisfied.

What I do know is that I am to do what God has laid before me, and that my job is to obey. So that's my focus, and I'm excited to do this with you.

You First

Those who advocate for socialism and for socialist candidates who want to tax everyone more are hypocrites of the highest order: if they truly believe in wealth redistribution, nothing stops them from making voluntary contributions to the government to do exactly that.

I asked SuperGrok what the total amount of voluntary contributions to the IRS was in 2024.

Its response: "In 2024, the total amount of voluntary gifts donated to the U.S. Department of the Treasury to reduce the public debt was $2,785,754.76. These contributions are accepted under 31 U.S.C. § 3113 and are tracked monthly in the footnotes of the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD) reports published by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service."

Just under $3 million dollars.

The celebrities who advocated for the election of Zohran Mamdani are as follows:

Ava DuVernay (filmmaker), Ben Platt (actor/singer), Bowen Yang (comedian/actor), Cynthia Nixon (actress), Emily Ratajkowski (model/actress), Ilana Glazer (comedian/actress), Lorde (singer), Lupita Nyong'o (actress), Mandy Patinkin (actor), Mark Ruffalo (actor), Pedro Pascal (actor), Ramy Youssef (comedian/actor), Sarah Sherman (comedian), Sofia Coppola (filmmaker), Spike Lee (filmmaker), and Wallace Shawn (actor).

The combined net worth of these people is about $300 million. I guarantee that the $3 million in voluntary contributions to the IRS wasn't made by these celebrities, which would have only been 1% of their net worth.

Their strong, consistent message is: "TAX THE RICH!" Except for them.

Bernie Sanders used to complain about millionaires and billionaires until he himself became a millionaire - then he only complained about billionaires.

If Mark Ruffalo alone had put his money where his mouth is and given the government 10% of his net wealth of $35 million, that would have been more than the entire annual voluntary contributions to the IRS in 2024. But he didn't and few do because, in truth, no one wants to pay more in taxes.

They just want to look compassionate, asserting government as an arm of charity. They outsource. Using you and everyone else.

The truth is this: no one is compassionate when they're using other people's money.

Socialism is a scam, because no one who advocates for it wants to be on the contributing side of it.

Candy

Ah, last night's election.

I'll start with the big takeaway: there is no "gotcha" you can produce for a Democrat candidate that will cause other Democrats to leap ship. Jay Jones won - the man who fantasized about killing children. No Democrat walked away from him, and he beat the Republican.

If you want to win, you can produce no thoughtful argument against Democrat opposition. Your only option is to out-organize the solid coalition that is the Democratic Party.

I ask my every audience in my seminar: which party is it that is more likely bring a busload of voters on election day? "Democrats" is the universal and consistent answer I hear.

Zohran Mamdani didn't brag of stellar resume. He bragged of things he would do for the people. Free buses, rent reduction, and so on. He offered candy.

Ignorant New Yorkers, who once elected socialist Bill de Blasio to the office of mayor, turned out and Mamdani won. If Sliwa had withdrawn his candidacy, Mamdani would have won anyway. Why? Because the only opposition that had a chance, Cuomo, ran on his resume and not an agenda that appealed to voters.

I tell candidates all of the time that it's about the Land of Milk and Honey. Mamdani offered one and Cuomo didn't. And that's the New York election.

Republicans pushed identity politics with Winsome Earle-Sears, the "black woman," and expected that Democrats might vote for her because of the color of her skin. Nope. She was wiped out in the election. (Despite a blizzard of text messages nationally - which goes to my perpetual point that text messages are a nothing burger for fundraising and turnout...) She also offered no oft-repeated agenda of what she offered the people. Without a Land of Milk and Honey, she was a black Republican who denounced Jay Jones, and her opponent didn't. That "I'm not horrible like you" posture achieved nothing.

The younger generations are terrified of their financial future. They should be. AI will replace so many jobs in the next few years, college bankrupts them, houses (and life) are unaffordable... what answers do Republicans have for that?

Outside of President Trump, nothing. And congressional Republicans do nothing to pass Trump's agenda or codify his EO's. They have no urgency. For them, it's the 1980's. They incessantly wear a "What, me worry?" look on their faces.

We get the government we allow. Last night, Republicans allowed socialists and Muslims to take root in major offices in cities and states.

We organize, or we lose everything. That's it. Whatever your political agenda, you either organize, or you will lose.

Some urge people to wake up. I don't. I urge them to love their families enough to take action to protect them. You either love your family or you don't. It's not about us. It's about what we're about to hand down to our children and grandchildren.

Those children and grandchildren are being offered poisonous candy. Will we make them eat it by doing nothing to prevent it?

Consistency

Here's a challenge for any campaign: call up ten of the most ardent supporters and ask them, without prompting, what the candidate will do for the people once elected.

If you get ten different answers, you might find that the messaging is not as tight as it needs to be.

Think back to the presidential campaign we just had and compare...

If you asked ten Harris supporters what she would do for America, you would get a lot of random, and likely incoherent, answers, pivoting off of "Well, she's not Donald Trump."

If you asked ten Trump supporters what he would do for America, the answers would likely be consistent, starting with "Make America Great Again."

Campaigns that have a tight and attractive message make it easy for their supporters to ripple the message of the campaign to others. Most campaigns don't really have this, but they need to have it.

Volunteers lend themselves to the campaign not because they like the candidate, but because they like what the candidate will do for them in office. As I say in my presentation, "A few will join you because they like you. Many more will join you because they like what you will do for them."

So candidates should start with this: what will you do for the voters once elected?

Make America Great Again wasn't just a slogan - it was an agenda. Border security, strengthen manufacturing, energy independence, make America healthy again... President Trump's every rally echoed and emphasized these themes. The audience began to know it by heart and could easily repeat it.

Consistency in messaging is everything. Consistency leads to credibility and bolsters authenticity.

Most importantly, consistency assists grassroots victory. Guaranteed, establishment opponents in a primary run on nothing but their time in office. No one knows anything of what they will do for the voters in the future because leadership hasn't told them yet how to vote.

Those who tell you that political experience is good for the people forget that Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, and Nancy Pelosi have about 150 years of combined political experience, and all of our lives are worse for it.

Have a clear agenda based on the priorities of the voters that you message consistently and hard enough that your supporters can repeat it. If you do, the big money of your opponent will matter less and less because excited word of mouth about what you will do will aggressively travel throughout the district.

Competing with Less

Almost every grassroots campaign contends with having much less money than their opponent. The incumbent is well-financed, pushing name recognition throughout the district and the grassroots candidate feels mostly alone, fighting for air.

Jay Conrad Levinson, author of Guerilla Marketing, said this: "Marketing is the art of getting people to change their minds - or to maintain their mindsets if they're already inclined to do business with you. People must either switch brands or purchase a type of product or service that has never existed before. That's asking a lot of them."

I bring up guerilla marketing because it's how you attract attention for less money. Typical campaign consultants roll through money doing big, ordinary things: mailers, TV and radio ads, social media ads... and those are great if you have a lot of money. But how do you attract attention when money is limited?

How do you compete with less?

You start with this: the very purpose of all marketing is to be memorable. Think of the dumbest commercial you ever watched. You still remember it today because it was ridiculously dumb. That was probably purposeful. So, if you release something smart and memorable, all the better.

Most campaign mailers are forgettable. They're unsurprising. They're typical. It's why they're thrown away quickly. It's money wasted, mostly.

The first key to guerilla marketing is to surprise people. Give them the unexpected and do it in a memorable way. Make it impossible to forget.

Most mailers have a nice torso picture of the candidate, some bullets about what they might do, a bio, and a link / QR code to a website.

What might be different is a close-up picture of the candidate drinking coffee with the words "I want to listen to you over coffee."

Which one are you less likely to immediately throw away?

If you can connect with people on an emotional or urgent level, you're further along.

People hate property taxes. So perhaps you might try this... do you suppose this might intrigue the person who receives it?

And if you don't have the money for mailers?

Then you get creative in the things you can do. Everyone blockwalks. I started blockbiking, and bought a banner trailer for when I would go house to house to ensure I was memorable after I left.

The element of surprise - the unexpected - is everything. Running for office is a daring exercise... so turn up the dare in your campaign and be fearless.

Where AI Goes

I'm not excited about AI. I will tell you why.

I say this, mind you, as a guy who works fairly high up in the IT food chain. I deal with complex databases, human interfaces with data, the Internet, and so on. I'm not afraid of technology. I embrace it and use it.

Let's look first at humans. People need to work and push themselves forward. We need challenges and a bit of adversity, which is why competitive sports are popular. But humans struggle with complex topics. Most people don't find computers intuitive at all and are not proficient with computers. It goes without saying that as computers become more complex, the intellect required to build and maintain them gets further out of the reach of the average Joe and Jane.

This is why I have said for two decades now that computer efficiency is a euphemism for human replacement. The more efficiency there is in a computer process, the fewer people are required because the computer does the work. I think this is why we see people turning to creating entertainment as a means of income. From OnlyFans, which makes it easy for young girls to sell themselves to others, to people who aspire to become a social influencer, to people willing to stupidly risk their lives for a bit of money.

None of this is positive. It's a result of people believing that they can make a quick buck in exchange for some financial stability in the future. It's because they don't see room for themselves elsewhere in the economy.

And more people see their job functions being replaced by computers. We now have completely automated fast food restaurants, for example. Software engineers are about to meet the AI system that writes better code than they do. Bill Gates sees a future where doctors and teachers are replaced by AI.

Dirty Jobs' Mike Rowe sees traditional trade work being safe from AI for the near future, but even graphic design and writing are quickly being done by AI. Movie creation is soon being done by AI - even the actors.

So, we can perhaps say that AI can augment and enhance what humans can do. Excel makes computation easier, of course. The computer expands my capability here. Using a database does the same, but it does what a human can't do. That would be the difference. When the computer starts doing what the human can do, then humans are no longer necessary. When humans use chatGPT to do the writing for them, then the skill of writing dissipates for the humans who do that. chatGPT doesn't improve our writing skills. It replaces them. And often, badly.

All of this, too, is a net negative.

But where I am most concerned is water. AI needs water for cooling. A lot of water. And they're poisoning the water with anti-freeze.

"Google states that, in 2021 on average, just one of its data centers used 450,000 gallons of water per day in its operation. That is the equivalent of water use from over 100,000 homes." People in Abilene are reportedly being asked to cut back on showers.

Finally, some of the richest people in the world who can control the direction of AI are simply evil. The World Economic Forum isn't a big fan of regular people, and Bill Gates himself warned about population growth, but the reverse is the case - humans are not reproducing at the rate necessary to repopulate the earth. We've seen what an engineered virus can do to shut down society. China has the intention of knowing our genetics. What happens when AI is turned loose to create a custom-engineered virus based on individual DNA?

That's really the danger. Consuming resources, like water, necessary for humans and creating bad outcomes for targeting humans by bad actors.

"Oh but that's why we need AI - to come up with ways to stop these bad outcomes."

The cold war, with its threat of nuclear holocaust, was bad enough. We knew those actors. It was a public threat. Just wait for the teenager in his bedroom who is mad at the world and uses AI to find interesting ways to undo people.

This is why I'm not excited about AI.

Empowering People

A week ago, we released the House of Good Cards and the House of Bad Cards. We didn't advertise it. JoAnn still hasn't sent out our official email about it to the people in her network across Texas. But one week after release, the sites already have about 20,000 page views.

We've never paid any advertising for it. If what you create satisfies a hunger that people have for the content you create, then you'll spend far less than someone might expect to get traction. I expect somewhere between 100K and 200K page views by the end of August, and perhaps a million or so by the end of the year. Grassroots Priorities already has about 7 million page views for the year. All for zero marketing dollars. And we don't push it on social media...

Why did these websites get traction? Because they empower people with irrefutable information that they need.

A client of mine wrote me tonight about the frustration she's having with a website that was written by someone else and it's hard to manage. It was written with Wix or WordPress. It has outdated content on it. She needs a new page with new content, and that content will need to change frequently. These websites weren't really built for that. I couldn't have built GP or HOBC/HOGC with that framework. Dynamic data-driven websites, to be really effective, have to bend to the data and to the best means of comprehension for the viewer. That requires some creativity and freedom by the developer, and an understanding of what people want.

What people hate most about computers and the Internet is feeling stupid and inadequate. Computers are a tool that, at their best, empower us. If the content and abilities on a website make people feel smarter and empowered, they're more likely to return to it and use it again.

On the other hand, if the website information is outdated, confusing, or difficult to access, then people will struggle for a reason to return.

Ditto on the management of a website. Normal humans aren't techies. A website should be easy to manage and not require a book and a 6-month course to feel confident with it. Here on Opinion Paper, I wrote the whole thing, and my lovely wife, Nicole, is no techie. But she manages my calendar on here like a pro because it doesn't make her feel stupid. I've been building a backend ToDo management system into the site to integrate with the calendar so that my time is well-managed and I don't drop any balls. I'm also setting up an invoicing system in it to manage billing my clients. Nicole doesn't know HTML or databases. But she knows organization. Giving her a tool that empowers her strengthens her natural ability to organize.

The Calendar is the smartest thing I did this year. It allows anyone to go to my schedule and see what time I have available for them and then they text me and claim it, whether for a seminar or a consult. It empowers me and it empowers others.

DataRepublican on X does an extraordinary job of this, creating functional tools that empower people. Her work gets effortless traction because she's good at it, and people feel empowered through her good work.

Software should serve people, which is why "Software as a Service" (SaaS) became a thing. It works best when the emphasis is service that empowers people and not software that makes you feel confused.

It's easy to feel dizzy sometimes around technology. It's refreshing when it's easy to use and gives you what you need and makes you feel smarter.

It should make our lives better. Which is why I'm very concerned about AI, but that's a different topic for another day.

Transparency Matters

The House of Bad Cards and the House of Good Cards are now out there for the world to see and use.

Of course, the purpose of the deck is to tell people about our Texas legislators. For those in the bad deck, it's a list of things that no Republican should ever do. Why would a Republican push for subsidizing Hollywood to come to Texas? Taxpayers will never see a dime of that. It's safe to say that our Republican legislature has lost its bearing when it comes to limited government.

It's critical that we don't just criticize... we should also high five those who do the right thing. That's what the good deck is all about. I called it "the deck of heroes" because if every legislator had the attitude of those in the good deck, Texas would be stronger and better. Regrettably, too many in the bad deck from achieving good for Texas.

And so it's up to us - to elect the replacements who will do the right thing when in office.

I own texasgopprimary.com. I think I'll use it to promote those I want to win in 2026. Maybe I'll erect that later in August...

It's all about organization. I'm helping a few candidates - marketing, land of milk and honey, oppo research, organization and ground game. Sometime this week, I'll go to Melissa's place to help assemble a bunch of Texas-sized bumper stickers. The same for Paulette's campaign. A ground game on steroids is how we beat the money.

Most consultants run a 30,000-foot campaign, effectively dropping leaflets on the district in the hopes that the marketing they do catches with people. Bad incumbents don't meet the people - that would require answering questions about harmful votes for bad bills. I call it the "aerial campaign." They also employ the purchase and placement of a bazillion yard signs. They don't talk in person to their constituents. The incumbent is as plastic as their yard signs.

We should mock that strategy. It's impersonal. It's distant. And most importantly, it denigrates the importance of actual representation.

Representation should be unafraid to listen to people and provide truthful answers. I'm cooking up a few ideas for videos about that very thing - the contrast.

Money is important in a campaign - you have to market the candidate, but the more we make million-dollar campaigns irrelevant with actual personal interactions, the better our representation will be because it relies on relationship. Few incumbents have a personal relationship with their constituents.

Let's tell the truth about our incumbents. Let's highlight their votes. Let's see if they have a viable land of milk and honey. Let's watch if they will interact with those they deem to represent and answer truthfully.

Transparency is everything, which is why it matters.

Gypsies

It's been a minute since I wrote here, so on this Saturday evening with the insects talking to each other outside and Lloyd Cole singing "Ice Cream Girl," a bit of an update. I don't usually do updates, but it seems right today...

Nicole and I are just back from doing a seminar in Denton, Texas. Thursday, we did one in Abilene. Tomorrow, we do one in Mt. Pleasant, Texas. We're traveling a bunch. Toward that end, we bought the diesel beast you see in our driveway here. It's an older truck. After some mechanic love, we pick it up Monday and from here forward, that will be our travel vehicle.

At the seminar today, a woman who buys into the idea of The 350 Plan (where you set aside money every month to help a candidate later), brought mason jars to hand out to the attendees. That was pretty cool and unexpected. Thanks Julie!

In early September, I'll be back in Tennessee doing a seminar there. Had a guy recently ask me if I can get to New Mexico. Yes, I told him. He said that there are a bunch of conservatives there who are fed up with losing and they want to start winning. Having attended the seminar, he wants to see if he can get me there. Fantastic!

A pastor called me from the Rio Grande Valley and will be running for office. He heard good things about the book, called me, and we had a great conversation. I look forward to seeing what he does with his first-time campaign. I expect I'll talk with him a few more times, especially after he finishes the book.

I've been working on the updates to House of Bad Cards and the new House of Good Cards. We reveal them Saturday, July 26th. I get asked about them wherever I go.

And I'm working with a few candidates directly. They're using the votersPLATFORM getting their connections underway.

I say all of this to say: all of these amazing, joyful patriots everywhere I go... Nicole and I get to serve these good people who are working like crazy to secure our freedom. I am busy, but abundantly grateful for this life.

Branding

A brand sets expectations. You come to anticipate certain things based upon a company's or product's branding. If I mention "Waffle House," an experience comes to your mind. It's a diner, it's good but not fancy, and it's friendly.

I talked previously about the importance of setting expectations in the minds of others in a post I titled "Political Velocity."

Later, I wrote about the release of the Epstein Files in a post I titled "What Do You Expect?" In it, I said this:

The crazy thing about this new government accountability stuff... if you say you're going to do something, then people actually expect you're going to do it.

In the absence of knowing, people make stuff up, and it's almost always negative. So, in the absence of knowing where the list is that we were promised went, we get a ton of conjecture. Nobody trusts Pam Bondi today, Kash's reputation is in tatters, and the man we trust the most, Dan Bongino, is getting bruised pretty well.

Back in September of 2024, Kash said this in an interview:

"I'd shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the 'deep state.' Then, I'd take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops. You're cops - go be cops."

The Republican Party, in general, is really bad at messaging. Terrible at setting expectations. We don't need more people who over-promise and under-deliver. But that's becoming the branding for the current Republican Party.

Branding begins in the hands of those who want to promote the brand, but then experience with the company or product turn management of the brand over to the public. At that point, perception steps in, and when it comes to brand, perception is reality. Bud Light is the best example of that. The beer hasn't changed, but public perception about the beer has changed, and it will never recover.

I wrote yesterday about the potential for a third party. This purported admission from the Trump administration about the Epstein List doesn't help smooth that over. It makes it worse.

The midterms need to keep Republicans in office. I pray they do. Better management of their branding by setting and meeting expectations would help. And Republicans are terrible at that.

Authenticity

The hardest thing in life is to see the world as it really is. We suffer through filters and biases and narrow vision that only sees thing in small slices... it's hard to grasp the whole.

In politics, authenticity is the coin of the realm. People believe in those they perceive to be authentic. Authenticity is created by consistency. But the moment you begin to break consistency, the faster people will peel away from you. They can't believe you any more.

Therein lies Elon Musk's core problem. He's inconsistent. One day, he's the darling of the environmental left. The next he is helping President Trump. Today, he envisions a new political party.

Inconsistency is the problem.

Plus, X - the Musk product the world touches most - is plagued with weird algorithmic problems. More inconsistency. Grok is unreliable for its inability to discern truth, spitting out garbage from bad news sources. More inconsistency.

For Musk, inconsistency is not a bug, it's a feature. Genius thrives in chaos and surprise. It's why when his rockets fail, he's excited to learn from the failure. Those lessons make future rockets stronger. Not many people do well with failure or inconsistency. They seek stability and predictability.

Political leaders have to showcase a consistency that will lead to perceived authenticity. Musk can't. It's not his nature. He solves problems by looking at things from different angles and employing rapid prototypes. That's successful for the entrepreneur inventor, but not for a society that needs steady rules for the road.

It's why his new party initiative will fail. It will attract the wrong people and opportunists who share no consistency other than a desire to profit from chaos and change.

A party platform needs consistency. It requires some semblance of principles, and unity around those principles. The opportunists will voice their support for whatever the party might hold true, but mean none of it.

Musk should focus on Mars. It requires less psychology. That's his passion anyway.

But how did we get here? Bluntly, it's because the Republican Party has no consistency either. Does it limit spending? No. Trim government? No. Put America first? Occasionally. (I have yet to meet the person who trust Brooke Rollins and her handling of US Ag.)

The Republican Party, by abandoning principles that were initially its branding, left a vacuum. People might be interested in Musk's new party, not because of its great platform (it doesn't have one) but because they no longer believe the Republicans will do what they once promised. Anyone leaning toward Musk's party does so out of protest and not out of embrace for its consistent principles.

We have to limit government. We're not. But if we do, it won't come because we believe in Elon Musk. It will only come because we choose to organize and take our fate into our own hands. Any party can be a party of the people. It depends on whether the people will work to shape the party to the will of the people by electing the right people.

Organization requires authenticity. No one wins in politics without perceived authenticity. I'll stay in the Republican Party. I'll drive organization. More authentic people to be found there in the grassroots than anywhere else.

Your Brain on AI

At MIT, they've done a preliminary study of 54 participants using AI. Want to know what happens to your brain when using AI for a writing task? Here we go.

From the abstract, the researchers explored the "neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing. Participants were divided into three groups: LLM, Search Engine, and Brain-only (no tools)."

Let's break that down.

LLM stands for Large Language Models. According to IBM, AI uses LLM's "trained on immense amounts of data making them capable of understanding and generating natural language and other types of content to perform a wide range of tasks: text generation, content summarization, code generation, and sentiment analysis."

Think of it like hiring a person to write your college term paper for you, or to create Cliff Notes. While on the one hand that can seem efficient, and maybe produce something better written than you might have done, there's a serious downside.

From the research: using chatGPT "scaled down" the user's cognitive function.

EEGs are used to detect brain activity. The "EEG revealed significant differences in brain connectivity: Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks; Search Engine users showed moderate engagement; and LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels."

In other words, continued use of AI for language tasks makes you dumber. Significantly dumber.

That makes sense.

When I write, I have to think of what I want to say and then work to organize my thoughts so that I can effectively communicate my thoughts to someone else.

If I hire someone to do that for me or get chatGPT to do it, I'm not using my brain. I miss the workout, so to speak. My brain gets weaker, more tired, and lazy.

Computers, when done right, allow us to enhance what we already do with our brains. A computer can coalesce data faster, create a chart, and so on. But if I don't really understand the data, the argument, the presentation, and the explanation of what a computer produces for me, then it's all somewhat meaningless - because to me it has no meaning. Someone else did all of the work.

Plus, I'm a programmer. I understand completely that any computer system - no matter what it is - only does what it is programmed to do.

This is why X's grok is wildly wrong lately.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Give your brain the workout. Lay off the AI. Let's just say that there is no "AI" in a robust brAIn. Your brain is better without it.

Push and Pull

Over the weekend, I gave a seminar in Dallas that went very well. I have a sense of humor and occasionally use a local politician as the target of a snarky comment, which I did. People laughed and agreed. A woman came up to me in the intermission and said to me, "You just told us that we need grace with each other to ensure that we feel welcome. Wasn't that joke kind of hypocritical?"

It's a fair comment, and I invited her to talk with me after the seminar if she wanted to pursue it.

The politician, relatively new to the Republican label, isn't always that Republican in views or behavior. I don't get the impression that he sees this as something to address. In fact, whatever label he sticks to himself, it's up to the people to determine.

Nobody owns their brand. Others do. Brand management happens in the hands of the customer, regardless of the PR attempted to sway people otherwise. Look at Bud Light.

Which is why people laughed at my little aside. Humor has an element of truth to it to provoke that "A-ha!" moment of surprised giggle. The people, having experienced the politician's policies, had come to their own conclusions and knowing that, I played off their conclusions. But hers is a good question. What's the difference between push and pull in politics?

I say in my book, to attract those to your side, be attractive. But not everyone believes as you do. They won't agree. They might find your opinions repulsive and objectionable. Democrats and Republicans aren't in alignment on issues and the deeper you're in that fight for election, the other is the enemy. That too is difficult for some.

"Can't we just get along? Why so polarizing?"

If you believe, as I do, that policies impact culture which changes lives and incomes, then the fight is aggressive. As my friend, Christin, asks: "Is it EVER acceptable to give a child pornography?" And yet, public and school libraries do. Because of it, innocence is taken from the child, and sexual themes are introduced far before the child matured for such ideas.

That's just one example. Politics are not idle, harmless beliefs. Too much spending leads to taxation that removes the widow from the home she owns. Mandates, regulations, laws, fees, licensing... all of it changes our world.

I like to say that there is no "polite" in politics. There just isn't. It's insults and elbows if you're much involved and those in power didn't come to be nice.

Historically, challenging royalty resulted in diverse and very painful punishment. Today, a YouTuber can, um, decorate Nancy Pelosi's driveway and live to tell the tale. But if you try to remove the powerful from power? Then it gets serious and the gloves come off and the innocent get jailed to protect those in power - and lives are changed forever.

Opinions and beliefs, like magnets, can either greatly attract or shove away. It's why some choose not to engage.

We will all come to a conclusion about those in power, and we will all determine what we want to do about those in power and the policies they force upon us. To get through that drama, a little humor helps - even if it's at the expense of the powerful. Thankfully, we can get away with that without losing our heads.

Fight, fight, fight.

What is Conservatism?

Newly added to my seminar is a series of slides helping candidates define their land of milk honey better. It's the aspect of campaigns, I've discovered, that troubles new candidates more than the rest of the preparation for the campaign.

I break it down into principles first, then the choice of policy destinations, and finally tactics.

Principle: No one should lose the home they own to the government.
Destination: Work to eliminate property taxes.
Tactics: Spending reductions across the board, give any surplus back to the people, etc.

You'll know a candidate first by whether they have a land of milk and honey, then by whether they've created an attractive destination, then by whether they have policies they work to implement that can get us to the land of milk and honey, and finally by how aggressively they act to pursue it and lead us there.

Most of the establishment incumbents only have a land of milk and honey as dictated to them by donors or leadership - which is to say they don't have one.

Fewer yet craft such policies. Fewer still try to implement such policies, no matter how much cry for it that they hear from their constituents in their district.

Far and away, "conservative principles" are fodder for marketing material and not for serious pursuit of policy. This is why the GOP looks to soon lose the midterms.

I did a search on the web for conservative principles and found a pretty good list. Here it is:

• Individual Freedom
• Limited Government
• The Rule of Law
• Peace through Strength
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Free Markets
• Human Dignity

What policy destinations can come from that? Perhaps this:

• Return our God-given Rights to us
• Lots of repeal
• Return to equality for all in our legal system (where those elected and the rich don't get favored treatment)
• Champion self-defense
• Stop and cut spending
• Cut subsidies / regulation
• Promote individuals and not groups

You might get pretty excited.

And now imagine that they actually acted aggressively to achieve those for us.

We'd be pretty happy with that elected official. Right?

If only we saw those principles from those in power, who acted with authority to lead us to such a visionary land of milk and honey. In Austin, in DC. If only we had such leadership.

It might surprise you who wrote that list of principles. Go ahead. Click the link and find out.

Then you'll understand why things like this are mostly marketing and not serious pursuit of policy.

When those in power fail to act and fail to lead, we have to replace them. Our families require that we respond to the urgency of these times when those we elect don't.

Together - Better

College is a simple idea: you sign up, shell out a ton of money, buy and read the assigned books, and then take tests proving that you understand the assigned books.

I dropped out of college third semester in. But I read a lot. The image you see here is just the snapshot of some of the books I've purchased from Amazon over the years.

Very smart people wrote those books, and I devoured them. Sometimes in a conversation, what I learned from a book will bubble up and weave itself into the discussion. I'm thankful for that. I want to remember and easily recall smart things.

Today, I remembered what something from a book entitled Leading Teams. The author speaks of how an airline works its flight crews. We've all seen it - the pilot might or might not know the co-pilot. The same for the navigator, if one is necessary. And the flight attendants. They learned that flight crews who routinely worked as a unit had less mishaps than mixing their people around.

The more we hang around someone, they more we know their habits, mannerisms, humor, shortcomings, and strengths. That knowledge is essential when surprises occur. We all behave normally when life happens as expected... it's when the unexpected happens that we learn how well we truly work together.

If you apply that to politics, then it becomes easier to comprehend why the establishment operates with efficiency toward its objectives and our newly elected officials take some time to find their lane.

Members of a team enhance each other. It's why married couples are often opposites: each provides what the other lacks. Longevity breeds familiarity which breeds comfortability.

We need the players who play the long game with us. When we find them, we survive both the expected and the unexpected and we grow stronger together - better over time.

Who's on your political team? The more each comes with a servant's heart, the more we can achieve.

The knowledge in all of those books from those wicked smart authors are part of my political team, whether they know it or not. And for that, I'm very thankful.

Fighting

Back in early 2015, before President Trump got in the presidential primary, Scott Walker was surging in the polls because he fought back against the unions. He gave a speech at CPAC where he touted how he fought back against the unions successfully a few times in Wisconsin and won. It pushed him to the front.

Of course, President Trump - the better fighter - won the nomination later, but it was standing up against the left that won the moment for Walker. No one expected that.

Look at the conservatives you admire across history. They were fighters. They fought liberal policies and those who pushed for them.

But also look at McCain. A military man, he loved to label himself the "maverick" who fought. He never pulled punches, no matter whom his target was. Regretfully, he often fought other Republicans and is perhaps most famous for being the Republican who saved Obamacare - maybe because of a personal vendetta against President Trump, maybe because he didn't like that Republicans didn't want to repeal but wanted instead to replace it. Whatever his reason, Obamacare lingers today, and with the initial cloture vote by a few Republicans to allow the Democrats to fund it and then McCain's betrayal a few years later, we all suffer from it today.

McCain is despised by many in the Republican Party today because rather than fighting the left, he fought the right.

There are many who don't like the in-fighting that occurs inside the Republican Party. You know some of these people.

Here in Texas, we have Republicans who join the Democrats and vote like Democrats when voting on Democrat bills. My question is this: if you vote like a Democrat on Democrat bills, what's the difference between you and a Democrat?

That's the pivot on this: does a politician fight against the policy that hurts your family or does the politician just fight against those they don't like?

I don't agree with any part of the Democrat agenda. I can't get behind any policy - Republican or Democrat - that will hurt my family. It is my responsibility before God to honor God and defend my family. God shows no partiality toward anyone - for all have sinned - and if He is no respecter of persons, why should I be? I give deference to no one when it comes to defending my family against those who might hurt my family. Sometimes, a bad policy can do more damage than the threat of a gun or a knife.

It's not my job to champion a politician. It is the politician's job to listen to and represent the people. It is my job to ensure that we have the best representative we can have to do that. That might mean replacing a Republican incumbent.

The politician who needs replacing will make great hay showing that they are fighting against their opponent, but if they're fighting a person more than they fight bad policy, then theirs is the wrong fight. It's completely fair to call that out. In fact, I am obligated to call that out.

Walker, who had little national name recognition, fought the left. Doing so vaulted him early to the top of the list of people jockeying to become the nominee for president in 2016. But later in the year, he crumbled against the juggernaut known as Trump, and he didn't distinguish himself in the debates. His quiet, accountant-style demeanor didn't convey the passion felt by a Republican Party that had endured eight years of Obama. You can call yourself a fighter, but to effectively fight, you need to do two things well:

1. Align yourself with the agenda of the voters and fight against bad policy
2. Voice it with passion like the voters would voice it

Walker, as the Slate article I linked to asks, "Why would anyone choose the guy who can't win a fight or make a mark?"

Politics is not a gentlemanly debate. It's elbows and insults. And only fighters should apply.

Organizing to Win

Last night, I went to a campaign's internal meeting to help them get organized for the coming fight to beat a bad incumbent in the Texas Republican primary next March.

A dozen people attended - all devoted patriots, all of them ready to do what it takes to help win this battle.

My role was to help them understand the game plan. We discussed strategy, roles, marketing, and how to go up against the opposition. It was a good discussion. The people were energized, and you could tell that they were going to do what it took.

If you've read my book or attended my seminar, then you have an idea of what they heard me say last night and you have a sense of what they are committed to do.

The candidate, who has run before, told me that this feels light years different than the first run. Having organization and strategy, enthusiastic supporters, solid messaging... all of this adds up. And the best part: this is only the beginning.

Last year, friends of mine, Dennis and Shari, devoted themselves to do what it takes. They organized early, got the messaging down, and built momentum to have their chosen candidates dominate the local, municipal races. Winning is addictive. Dennis told me the next day that it felt surreal to win by over twenty points in each race. He knew his local government was in good hands. He and Shari were already gunning for the next series of races to make every seat in their county solidly conservative and dedicated to listening to and serving the people.

Only eight of America's fifty largest cities have a Republican for mayor. People lament all of the time that local elections have such a low turnout. That's wonderful, I say. It gives our side a lower bar to win. If only three peolpe vote, we only need two votes to win. If three thousand people vote, we need 1,501 to win. Which one sounds easier?

We can win every race. Every race. We don't because we fail to organize early. We fail to have strong, attractive messaging. That can change, but people have to perceive that you're listening to and serving them.

Rasmussen reports that Democrats lead on the generic ballot going into the mid-terms.

Democrats lead on the generic ballot question mainly because of a slight advantage in partisan intensity. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Democratic voters would vote for their party’s congressional candidate, compared to 85% of GOP voters who would vote for the Republican if the midterm election were held today.

So why would the midterms lean Democrat? Because 41% give Congress a poor rating. From the article:

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene recently said: "Republicans in Congress are not delivering on the mandate given to them by the American people." Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters agree with that statement, including 33% who Strongly Agree.

Winning the election is not enough. We must have candidates who will deliver on what the people need and expect. If we don't have that, then we must work to replace them with those who will.

The more we organize early and develop our strong messaging based on facts, the more likely we are to win. There's no excuse to not win every race. The Democrats are wrong on pretty much everything.

We either organize early or we lose everything. Thankfully, I spent my evening with one campaign doing that.

Covetousness

Many Republican politicians profess to be Christian. And maybe they are - that's for God to determine.

But I know that many covet what isn't theirs. They spend your money to enhance their political future. They ignore that it's wrong to take from one person to help another person. They choose not to understand that no one is compassionate who spends the money of others to appear charitable.

Every child in America is born into a robust six-figure debt, but that doesn't give 99% of legislators any pause whatsoever as they continue to increase federal debt. Or the state budget. Or a county's reckless splurge. Or a city's hunger to grow government and appease vendors and friends.

These politicians covet. They want what isn't theirs. They feel no responsibility to protect the future of children. They measure their success not by returning to the people the money taken from the people through decreased spending (resulting in less future taxation), but by how happy their donors and backers and colleagues are.

Our nation's debt exceeds our GDP by over 20%. Tax cuts will accelerate our GDP, but without substantial spending reductions in the future, we spend increasingly exorbitant amounts on meaningless interest payment against our great debts. How does that serve the people?

And our nation's credit rating was just downgraded. Because of debt. How is that responsible?

Jennica (X's DataRepublican), a very smart data expert on the web who has uncovered so much for DOGE and highlighting bad actors in USAID, said this of the "big beautiful bill"

The most "responsible" plan anyone can come up with still adds trillions to our debt, just at a slightly slower rate. That's the hard truth. Even with the most disruptive leader in modern history, this is where we landed.

We are out of money.
We are out of time.
And still, we act like it's not a problem.

I'm not saying this to sound hopeless. But we have to face the truth: this is happening because of a culture of corruption.

In a fragile system - and let's be honest, our economy and government are pretty fragile right now - it doesn't take much for a Soros-type to act swiftly to damage what we have. Look how the Wuhan virus upended so many things in this life. No one is better for it except those who knew how to get rich from it.

There's a reason the founders regarded government as evil. Until we have politicians who act to truly limit government, the courts will disrupt our president, legislatures and councils nationwide will run up our debt, and freedom will be diminished and our children enslaved by a runaway government and its overwhelming debt.

All because the few we elect covet what isn't theirs.

The righteous return what's stolen. They don't keep it and they certainly don't crave more of it. We need to elect those who crave to act righteously for the people in the nation God granted us, or all our liberty will be lost.

Standards

A guy named Hugh showed me a long time ago that it's my responsibility to set the expectations of others in regard to my performance.

About a decade later, a guy named Ryan introduced me to the Scotty Principle. It's named after the Star Trek character. The conversation would go something like, "Scotty - how long until the engines can achieve warp drive."

"I dinno, Captin. It might be 48 hours for the shape my lady's in."

Kirk would then urgently bark into the com: "We don't have 48 hours!"

And then miraculously Scotty had it fixed in five minutes.

It's about setting expectations.

I have a slide in my seminar where I say that a Republican playbook requires Republican players, and if you're not choosing the members of your team, they might not be the players you need. Too often in politics, we see our players run to the wrong end zone. We see the label "REPUBLICAN" and imagine that they will do Republican things. That's the expectation.

What we end up getting usually is a few Republican things. "See? I'm conservative!" they tell us in their marketing. Mailers arrive, ads are cut, social media boasts of their few, modest Republican achievements.

But think of a two-parent household. Imagine the wife is away on a trip and the husband is home alone. When the kids need to be fed, do their homework, have clean clothes for tomorrow, and teeth brushed and put to bed, and the husband orders pizza and but doesn't ensure the rest is accomplished and fails to put away the dishes or tidy up, should the wife be excited when she returns home?

When measuring our representatives, it's not about whether they did something; it's about whether they did everything that needs to be done or could be done.

"Babe, I was just exhausted. The best I could do was order pizza." You know that won't fly.

We live in a time when low standards aren't enough. The times demand high standards. We can't afford to give a pass to bad incumbents who order pizza and expect praise when there is far more that needs to be done.

As I work with candidates readying for the 2026 primary, it's important to set the expectations of the voters, not just for the challenger, but for the incumbent. It's important to reset the bar. The bad incumbent wants to set the bar low, step over it with a few accomplishments, and then coast to easy victory to accomplish very little in the cycle.

The needs of our country, our state, and our family demand much more. The wise challenger addresses this.

How it could have been: the husband not only makes a good dinner, helps the kids with their homework, pushes them to clean up so that the house isn't a mess, and gets them ready for bed on time, he has dinner in the microwave set to reheat for his wife when she comes home. He aims to surpass her expectations because she deserves that. Because he cares about her and loves her.

We hire our representatives to act as we would. Very few speak as we would speak, act as we would act, or feel the urgency that we do. The truth is that they are not representative of anything. They move to protect their low-bar colleagues quicker than they move to protect our families.

We either have standards, or we don't. The standard is not a few Republican things. The times demand far more... or we won't have a Republic at all.

Attraction

I don't believe much in paid advertising.

For example, I always know who charges far too much for their product by how many times I see their commercials on TV. Which is insurance and pharmaceuticals. Way overpriced.

Sorry Flo.

I believe that anyone who develops a product learns more about how attractive and exciting their product is by how much word of mouth it gets. So, the challenge I give myself is to see how little I can spend on something to push it into the world.

(Marketing champ of all time, by the way, is Jesus. The fact that Christianity grew from one man and twelve disciples by word of mouth despite endless persecution across the centuries is remarkable. But he's the Lord, so perhaps he has an advantage...)

I haven't paid out any money to promote my book, for example. My risk of a few hundred hours writing the book and $8,535 buying 1,000 self-published copies last fall has paid off - I'm in the black. I just booked my first seminar out of state - in Tennessee.

Or take Grassroots Priorities. GAWTP has spent no money on advertising, but the website is becoming a fixture in Texas politics. We're not quite halfway through May, but we already have over 1 million page views for the month. During this session alone, over 37,500 unique visitors.

When you listen to people and give them what they want - to empower them and improve their lives - they will come to you for what you offer.

Any time you create something and offer it to people, a conversation begins. You try to find the best way to articulate what it is and how it can help and then you begin to hear whether it resonates with people or not.

If it doesn't, you have two choices: you either modify the product or the pitch, or you can push it harder into the market with money.

Sometimes, the money is smart because if you don't have an organic way to reach people initially, then the money can lift you to get to people. It's an investment and a boost. But if you keep having to plow money into advertising, that might be worth looking into. Something is amiss.

Can a product get major market share without any advertising? Yes, of course. Ever seen a Tesla ad on TV, for example? No, you haven't. Why? The product and its word of mouth are that good.

Guerilla marketing is hard. But it's street-level and forces you to really listen to those who might want what you offer. If you do it right, you get the maximum return on investment. There is no advertising better than word of mouth.

I spend a great deal of time thinking about how to apply that to politics and elections.

We lament the money in politics. How much is spent selling us on bad incumbents peddling bad policy? That would be an example of working too hard to sell a bad product. It's so artificial.

As Grassroots Priorities shows, people want the facts. They don't want a spin or an interpretation of the facts. People want to be empowered with knowledge and a means to share that with others. If you do that right, then people will come to it organically.

And the more you practice that discipline, the better you will get at doing it. It's about listening and creating something of real value that improves lives. People are smart enough to know whether their life is better for what you offer, and if what you offer does that, you don't need money to push it on people. It's attractive all on its own.