Don't back off on traditional values. It's important to show respect and tolerance for others, but they must show the same respect for your values. Tolerance is a two-way street.
I think it's unrealistic to believe that somewhere in outer space two big rocks crashed together with a bang and now I have a wonderful family, freedom, and opportunity." We're gathered here with love and fellowship and friends. You can bang rocks together all you want; you cannot create what we have here. Maybe God can create life from big bangs, but rocks can't.
It is a tremendous sacrifice to run for political office in America today.
One of the reasons I'm in this business is because I have absolute respect for the people who say, "You know what? I think I can make this a little better and I'm willing to get in and try." Because, I'll tell you, there are a hell of a lot of reasons to stay away from running for office today.
I would advise people occasionally to take the media on, but only when you know it's a manufactured product and not a news interview.
When the media gets into creating their own product and then deciding to cover it, they are becoming part of the process and, therefore, could be damaged.
I think the media is dangerously close to creating their own product. They used to cover the product, which was whatever's happening.
There was no news in the Dan Rather piece. They didn't say [to Bush]: "We found a piece of paper that was overlooked in the 300,000 pieces of paper that were covered in the Iran-Contra hearings, and we have a piece of news we'd like to ask you about." CBS decided to create a media event and cover it in its own fashion. This was unprecedented in American history. CBS cancelled two-thirds of the newscast... to get a guy and take him out.
Taking on the media is something I would never tell a candidate to do. I'd advise him what I would do in that circumstance, but that's about it.
Candidates rarely win battles with the media, and unless you really know what you're doing you should not tangle with them. The exception is when you know this is a search-and- destroy mission on the part of the media and your case is very strong, you are very articulate, you know what you're trying to accomplish - and you have no alternatives.
Just because someone thinks he is being attacked by the media doesn't mean he is. Many times the media actually is being fair, and they're attacking for good reason.
In the Rather/Bush incident, it was totally unfair. CBS was trying him and convicting him and trying to execute him on national television. They had made up their minds. CBS made the fatal error of trying to become the political opposition to George Bush. And, when they did that, they put themselves in an arena where they can get knocked on their fanny.
Just because somebody else likes a candidate doesn't necessarily mean everybody else will like him.
Fighting with the media almost always is a mistake. You can't win the argument, the media has the last word, and most times your argument is not justified.
I've found increasingly less effectiveness with the man-on-the street type of stuff that was very standard fare for years. It can still be effective, but it's got to be done well.
In general, I think man-on-the- street ads and endorsement spots are having less and less effect on people. The electorate's getting very sophisticated, and they want to make their own judgments.
Take the [1980] Jimmy Carter-Ronald Reagan debate. Carter kept trying to imply that somehow Ronald Reagan was going to push the button, or was irresponsible with nuclear war. You might have been able to make the case that Carter was responsible. But it's very tough when you see a person with Reagan's nice-guy persona up there to believe this guy somehow wants nuclear war, that he somehow wants to antagonize the Russians into an attack. It's just not credible; it doesn't cut with what all your other senses are telling you.
When a guy has his ego hurt, he's liable to jump into a fight he doesn't need to have.
As long asthe audience or the public perceives you to be sincere in your approach and not petty, they will think it's fair and they will wait for the other person's response. But if they sense it's petty or the slightest bit unfair, they'll turn on you right away.
Phrase it in an interesting way; don't phrase it in a mean or unfriendly way. Bob Dole said that if there's anything he would have done differently, he would have said [to George Bush] "Start telling the truth about my record" instead of "Stop lying about my record." Frankly, had he done that, life might be different for Bob Dole today.
You better be able to defend it after the attack - so don't stretch it. In other words, if the guy's guilty of A and B, don't make him guilty of A, B, and C. That's what a lot of people do.
It also has to do with how you look and how you sound. If you look like a mean SOB who's putting the other person down, that's different than if you're inquiring about the process they go through to make a decision on behalf of the public.
There's something about the American people: They have such an innate sense of fairness that the red light goes on and the bells go off the second you approach that line. Any kind of personal attack is verboten. You shouldn't do it; it's not worth it.
Anybody's position on an issue, anything they've said about an issue, and any way they've voted on an issue is fair game. You have every right to question that and go after it aggressively.
You've got to attract interest in your candidate. The problem when you're running far behind is that you've got to move through those positive phases very quickly. Then, you have to draw attention to the other guy. You've got to create interest in why you differ from him and you've got to create a desire to remove him.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: