66 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
The Republicans think they need to change their image
That's not the problem. Instead of trying to change how people perceive them, they need to change how they are. The other day Jeb Bush said, "We're associated with being anti-everything. Way too many people believe that Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker." Well, yes, Jeb, because you ARE. He left out "anti-environment" and "anti-not Christian." Probably an oversight; I imagine it can be hard to keep track of all the things you're against.
It's not just the messaging that's wrong, it's the fundamental, core, central, dear, lifelong, never-to-be-shaken beliefs of the people delivering the message. You can't just say "Hey, we're not bigots anymore!" You need to stop attracting bigots with all of the rhetoric that says "Hey, join us, we're the bigot party!" Birther? Join us! Tired of "them" (whoever your personal "them" happens to be)? Join us! Think any woman who speaks her mind is either a s-l-u-t, a lesbian or both? Join us!
They're not going to stop attracting bigots when they're constantly trotting out bigots to speak at their conventions and town halls. Donald Trump was a guest speaker just last week, as was Sarah Palin. Rush Limbaugh was made an honorary Congressman, for chrissakes.
You're right....There IS a learning curve.
PS...In Politics....Perception is everything.
What I see is that one party tends to offer
its complete package to all people and the other party has learned to break its package into smaller pieces and offer that to targeted groups. This tactic works quite well as did the candy bribes you may have seen in grade school elections.
That "complete package".....
.....tends to mostly benefit very few "targeted groups" at the expense of all the others. That's part of the problem. It may seem complete to THEM, but.....
"What's wrong with Christian prayer in public schools? Who's being left out?" Oh wait.....
The complete package can never satisfy
the individual self interests of so many people. Offering the complete package via the same rather than tailored message also says "I know you won't like parts of it but, overall, we think it's better than what the other guy is giving". That doesn't turn any on as much as "Hey, you're really going to like what this does for you (but never mind what it does to the rest of the country)."
There was not Christian prayer in school
There was prayer. It wasn't even done "in the name of Jesus". It was a Jewish prayer first uttered by a Jewish man. His name was Jesus. There was nothing in the prayer which any Jewish person could object to. So, I guess what you are trying to say is it served both Jews and Christians.
RE: What I see is that one party tends to offer
What I see is that one party tends to offer its complete package to all people and the other party has learned to break its package into smaller pieces and offer that to targeted groups.
When you vote you can pick and choose?
I like this Dem position and I like this Rep position?
1/2 vote for this person and 1/2 vote for this person?
Priorities?...YOU really don't agree with gay marriage so whoever is agin it...YOU'RE for them?
You get one vote, you pick the MOST important factor FOR YOU and that's how you vote?
Why are you using second person references?
Sorry but, to me, your reply and its structure makes no sense. Personally, I've never considered voting based on single issues but have a weighted method. I also don't believe it's proper to vote just to get something for oneself. How selfish that is.
But then that's his forte'
RE: I also don't believe it's proper
I also don't believe it's proper to vote just to get something for oneself.
you pick the MOST important factor FOR YOU and that's how you vote.
and you make the leap that the most "important factor" is "something for you", the most important factor could be healthcare for ALL Americans, or a host of other "important factors"
How selfish are YOU?
That's a terrible attitude
and a terrible assessment. Obviously some vote for what will help them the most, but others vote based on principles they believe in. Your concept is that someone who drinks and drives will prefer to vote for anyone running who wants to reduce penalties for doing such. Anyone who is sexually lose and morally bankrupt will prefer to vote for those who are the same. As for the latter, I will agree that seems to be the trend in today's world. Yet, unlike you, I'd like to think most vote for what they consider principles, even if it may inconvenience them at times when such are applied in a legal sense.
RE: a terrible assessment
I think ya' got me beat....HANDS DOWN!!!!! for making terrible assessments.
Your concept is that someone who drinks and drives will prefer to vote for anyone running who wants to reduce penalties for doing such. Anyone who is sexually lose and morally bankrupt will prefer to vote for those who are the same
I know you can provide names of candidates that have run on those platforms.
but others vote based on principles they believe in.
And IF those principles just happen to benefit you, well that's an unplanned bonus. Sure it is.
You're such a caring person James....Always thinking of making others lives more enjoyable...I won't list the groups that you care about. They're called Republicans.
So nice of you to lump
all Conservatives/Republicans into one huge group of bigots........because a small handful have made crappy remarks that even the rest of us don't agree with. But I didn't see you say one word Josh about the Dem campaign accusing Romney of murdering a woman. You can't get much worse than that. You had a hairy fit over Romney having some a investment account in the Cayman Islands, but pooh-poohed it when you had to learn that BO's current Treasury head ALSO has accounts there. If you really want to see hypocricy in action have a Dem/liberal look in a mirror.
Republicans actually have the courage to look hard and fast at themselves and what they need to do to make changes within.....and I don't believe their core principals need to be changed, they just have to figure out how to deliver the message more effectively. Democrats are dug in so deep with their ideology that they really don't believe they have ANYTHING that needs to be changed because in their eyes, as long as they can win without change but with smear campaigns against opponents, that's good enough for them.
Pot, meet kettle
I didn't do anything that you don't do almost every single day, Toni.
So you agree with the
essence of what I said in my post then regarding not only the Dems approach to winning but also that the Republicans really need to only figure out how to get the message of their principles across better.
I hate to see this
They are willing to abandon principles it seems in favor of political expedience.
or re-exam attitudes in favor of survival
Too many, even if not a majority, of the Republican speaking public are perceived as saying vote for me to protect yourself from "them", with a wide range of "thems" depending on the speaker.
You're not going to win the Hispanic vote if perceived as raising dislike of Hispanics while addressing how to deal with illegal immigration. And many Hispanics do see the Republicans.
I think the numbers I saw in a recent news story was that Obama won over 60% of every demographic you can divide the public into except white males. Too many still appear to be campaiging only those white males. It doesn't even matter what most Republicans think when currently elected Republican officials make as insulting statements as we've heard from a few for the last 2 years.
You can't be perceived as against everyone except for your core and expect them to vote for you.
I do agree with the idea the Republican candidates beat each other up pretty well in the primary debates and helped Obama instead the Republican party.
If the republican core is willing to stick to pricinciples that alienate so many maybe there will be a moderate party formed in the future for those that are tired of the zealot activists and reactionary bigots.
what insulting statements?
That immigration should be controlled better?
That sexual license leads to diseased bodies?
That abortion of children devalues all human life?
That unrestrained spending leads to growing national debt?
That protecting one's property is an assault on crime?
I could go on, but.......
that women who are really raped don't get pregnant?
did ALL Republicans say that?!
or just one? It's interesting how those opposed to Republicans in general will find a few wild hares to point at, while Republicans can point to entire movements among the Democrats that at best are foolish at worst even financially, morally and many other ways dangerous to us as a nation. Democrats prefer to focus on a person here or there and try and smish them up and spread their blood like paint on all Republicans, but let someone point out even a huge group among their supporters and watch them howl about how unfair that is.
Ask a lot of Republicans if they believe that statement you described, then get back to us with the results.
This past election
Democrats and liberals immediately targeted Romney from the very beginning of the primaries and like a dog with a bone never let up......and got uglier and uglier with their public accusations, even when they knew they were off the wall and without proof and merit.
They are already going after Rand Paul since his filibuster and his speech at CPAC.......
and no one questioned Obama's birth
certificate as soon as he started running?
That started specifically FROM BO
because he made the mistake of trying to get publicity for a book HE wrote about himself and his family.........and then he made sure that all of his college records were sealed. For someone totally 'transparent', he sure made sure he wasn't hassled about his breaking the law (drug days) and hiding his records. You can't blame the Republicans for picking up on his own words......but only a small handful took the birth certificate issue to the nth degree.
and republicans already slamming Judd who may
I wouldn't support her, but Mitch and his campaign have started, how long would it be? almost 20 months before the general election.
That women who use birth control.....
That the black guy with the "funny name" can't possibly be a "real American" and no matter how many versions of his birth certificate you see, you won't believe he was born here?
That the State Department is controlled by a mysterious Jewish cartel?
Please, DO go on.
You choose to list 'women who want birth control are s l u t s' when that isn't what Rush said at all....he said, and I agree with it, is that 'women who want birth control paid for by OTHER people are s l u t s' looking for a free ride......not only to getting the birth control paid for, but also having their abortions paid for when they are too lazy to take care of their own birth control methods responsibly.
As for the 'birthers'.......it was a small handful of extremists.......it wasn't widespread throughout the entire Republican Party. And again, you slam that issue, but refuse to acknowledge that the Dem Party actually DID condone ads against Romney claiming he killed a woman. If that isn't the ultimate extreme statement against a Presidential candidate, I don't know what would even come close to comparing it to. Can you?
Liberals are really good at slamming a few Republicans for 'crazy' statements, but you excuse your own VP for insanity on a regular basis, and all other Dems and liberals for their crazy allegations, such as spitting on Congressional members while making racist slurs against them when no proof of either accusation ever was brought forward, even with a million dollar reward up for grabs. Dems have been accusing Republicans and Conservatives of being racists with nearly every day regularity for the last five years, and no liberal or Democrat has ever come out publicly to state that it's ******... craziness.
Those are the kinds of things that Dems and liberals have been doing consistently with the help of the media.........and quite effectively........because when you don't have the ability to debate a topic logically and rationally, irrational accusations is all you have left, and when the media only reports the accusations without proof or merit, the voters only hear what the liberals want them to hear.
Even the latest Pew polls prove that if a story is going to be longer than 1 minute in length, the media refuses to air it, especially if it's political in nature because only 3% of its entire local news content is political or governmental........the rest is all local news, weather, sports, and highlights of anchors talking to each other about personal stuff.
Wrong link....this one
According to your link
It's an advance over 20, 30 40 years ago.
IF O'Reilly is interviewing an expert on the subject, if he just dragged someone in off of the street for the interview....WHY?
OK, women who want their birth control covered by insurance
Have it your way. You just called them s-l-u-t-s, proving my point. It may shock you to learn that no method of birth control is 100% effective. You can still get pregnant and laziness has nothing to do with it. This is exactly the kind of social myopia I'm talking about; thanks for demonstrating it for us.
Rush also seemed to think you need to take a pill every time you want to have sex and that the more sexually active you are, the more pills you need. Are you under that false impression also?
And that "handful of extremists" has been repeatedly defacto endorsed by the mainstream of the party. Why else would they invite Donald Trump to speak at that event last week? Why did Mitt Romney campaign alongside him? The message was clear. They wanted the birther vote and they still do.
Birthers are not the only racists embraced by the mainstream of the Republican party. Sarah Palin's list of racist remarks is too long to list here, and she spoke last week too. Michelle Bachmann is a xenophobe on top of her other qualities. Newt Gingrich referred to Spanish as "the language of the ghetto." Rick Perry owned a piece of property with the N word in its name, which he only painted over after word got out.
These aren't fringe people. These include people who were up at podiums running for president and at times leading the polling.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)