Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: GOP soft on principles, hard of understanding

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 17, 2012, 10:01 p.m. EST by brightonsage (4494)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

GOP leaders are busy telling each or the and the party faithful (and I use the term advisedly) that they need to change their positions before the next election.

During the campaign a few of their candidates made the mistake of telling the truth (re rape) that many of their smarter candidates would never say into a video recording device. Then the others said they would never say what those guys said (although they all actually believed the same radical positions, they wouldn't say them in those exact words.) So, the guys who were dumb enough to tell the truth lost. But some of the other guys who didn't tell the truth also lost.

And Romney (who believes that the truth is whatever I need to say to the people I am speaking to right this minute, but the next speech has to be different because they are different people and won't except those positions, and by they way, he meant what he said about the 47%, after denying it.) also lost, for reasons no GOP experts can agree upon.

So, after the election, some have decided that next time they should talk nicer and not mention their radical positions. (It worked in 2010 when they talked about jobs during the campaign then passed dozens of radical social bills while all jobs bills gathered dust.) Others say, "Even though these are our foundation principles, we should do what Romney did in the debates, just adopt all of the Dems positions during the campaign and then..." Well, you know the rest of that sentence. So the Etch a Sketch page changes completely from the Primary to the General, and then changes again after the election.

So, are the GOP soft on their principles, or soft on character?: Both? Are they, as my wife says I am, "hard of understanding?" Do they (as my wife says I do) hear what the electorate is telling them and just ignore it?

Maybe the reason they lose is that the electorate does fully understand the "principles that they hold dear," And maybe they understand the character that allows them to say one thing while believing another. And maybe they just flat disagree with them.

Maybe the only way they get any credibility is to cooperate in passing legislation that returns women's rights to make their own reproductive and healthcare decisions, and to allow people who love each other to marry, and to allow people who have lived here for years while being exploited by rich white guys to raise the kids who know only the US, and take the money out of elections and governance and that would be a down payment that would demonstrate they understand that they have been on the wrong side of these issues. Until then, they look like they are soft on principles and their principles are wrong and they fail to understand that freedom applies to women and gays and immigrants and the poor.

19 Comments

19 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You know, I remember when Jr. was reelected and I remember a female Dem sayingt that they (Dems) were going to have to "get religion" and I came to the realization-youse a used car salesman.

They say what they think that people want to hear. No more and no less and on either side of the aisle. People need to stop being little cheerleaders and start asking different questions.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Specifics matter and shades of gray matter and to say anything short of purity is all the same just isn't true and it isn't of any practical value. I had/have cancer and hearing the doctor say "This isn't what is going to kill you," may not have been 100% true but I appreciated hearing that over a statement that you have six months to live. I did ask the followup questions and I do in politics. What Romney has said since the election has confirmed that his 47% comments on the video were true even though he denied them during the election. I think people disbelieved his denials and it mattered.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Romney was one of the few that actually told you that he was going to bend you over and you wouldn't get any Vaseline.

They are applying for jobs where they are going to be limited by that which is already set in the constitution. It's a 'tis or 'taint thang. The only reason to make any other type of appeal is for cash and votes.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Sadly, you are right on both counts.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

What is it thinking? What does it want?

It's all the same machine, right? The Pentagon, multinational corporations... the police. If you do one little job, you build a widget in Saskatoon, and the next thing you know, it's two miles under the desert, the essential component of a death machine.

  • Cube
[-] 1 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

Okay. But the nation re elected Obama and the senate gained more democrats. Why are you worried about the GOP? Many people were convinced that given the last four years Obama was sure to lose. But he won. The GOP is irrelevant.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

And they control the House and can continue to block the Senate (in the absence of real filibuster reform). My memory still works. I'll bet there is a whole lot of concern about the 2014 elections.

If you think that Obama will be able to march his agenda through like the High School Band dances through their home stadium, I am afraid you will be disappointed.

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

If you want to DO something about Mr. Phil-A-Buster
please go to our document #29 on our DOCUMENTS page
NYC OWS Working Group page:


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2693) 1 year ago

Keep exposing GOP lies, and cut off the head of the snake. (as well as dem/prof. pol lies)

2 filibuster reform petitions #1. http://www.markudall.com/page/s/filibuster-reform

#2. http://www.reformthefilibuster.com/merkley/

some want to reform

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/11/6565299/gillibrand-elizabeth-warren-pushes-petition-filibuster-reform

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I kinda prefer Warren's approach even though Udall is my Senator (Well, not mine, He is owned buy somebody else.) Good of Gillibrand. Need Warren on the Banking Committee. She will make some stuff fly.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Our concern for the parties should focus on policies. Both parties members can (& have) supported bad policies.

IMHO bad policies are the conservative policies at the root of all our problems (eg: trickle down, weak regs, cutting/privatizing pgms of the 99%, Corp % pandering, war mongering.. etc)

So if more members of one party (or the party itself) supports these bad policies obviously I work against that party. But there are politicians in the better party I've worked against as well.

But it should be policies/issues that we focus on. Not because we have to be non partisan or 'equally weighted' in our criticism but because it is more specific/valuable, and because we can then apply our protests to any pol supporting a given anti 99% policy.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I believe there is some correlation between the lack of character in the presentation, e.g. misrepresentation of bad policies or misleading priorities, and the resentment of the public when they try to implement something different in policies or priorities than what was presented.

Someone can convince me otherwise but I watch commercial retail advertisers and customer satisfaction/complaints and I find a high degree of correlation between misleading advertising and the ultimate customer dissatisfaction. I think politics is the same in this respect.

The message is, sell what you plan to deliver and take the consequences. Then, if the market doesn't buy what you are selling, don't blame the market.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You're talkin about politicians/parties misleading people.

I agree that is bad!

My focus is on the issues that affect the 99%. Healthcare, economic fairness, etc.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

As is mine, but it is politicians that are standing in the way of fixing these problems. Analysis of the losers who lost isn't a total waste because some of them (just like them) are still in the process.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We must get into the street and protest all pols for the progressive change that will benefit the 99%

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I agree with that.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

They will not change their positions... only the lies that come out of their mouths. They will use new lies and they can't be trusted.

What can be done to get Congress to push for minimum wage increase?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

The worst liars lie the worst. And we still have to stay engaged to solve including the one you named.