There appears, though I could be wrong, to be nobody running the political show overall for the Republicans - all this while the Democrats are doing a great job, as is their very politically able leader Barack Obama.
The Republicans, as is one of their main tenets, bear 100% responsibility for this.
They make statements that do not include compassion or concern for the non-rich, yet they are doing, with their actions, what is truly in the best interests of the citizens, while the Democrats are attempting to do the same but with strategies that do not confront the economic realities. There appears to be integrity in the Republican actions, but it is not recognized nor properly communicated.
The Democrats are successful in labeling the Republicans:
As uncaring, 'uncompassionate' demons.
The Republicans stand for being "tough" for the benefit of all, but they come across as harsh and uncaring - a real loser when dealing with human beings! (This will lose the election, where it will be easy to say that the Republicans don't care, so vote for us - on an emotionally appealing level.)
The Republicans do not parry Obama's move to get the public to be against them, as they do not mention that the reason they don't vote for any "jobs related" bill is because each of them add new taxes - and Obama knows the Republican position about no new taxes. (Sad commentary on a President's ethics.)
Caring only for the rich.
The Republicans do not win points for claiming the idea that we do not want to tax the rich because "they are the small business owners" - well, they are not so small if they make more than $1,000,000 and they will not be much affected by an increase in taxes of 4% above a million of net income. The Republicans should make it clear, in every discussion, that they are standing strong against any new taxes in order to force the government to stop its foolish spending and to be disciplined.
Taking away benefits (Social Security and Medicare).
The Republicans need to publicize the amounts owed clearly - people don't see it!!! - and then request that individuals go on a site explaining this and then to 'vote' as to what the citizens would recommend. (See Medicare - Which Do You Choose?.) And then the results of the poll should be published and more people invited to visit the site to see why people voted this way.
And they should say: "Our only goal is to have these programs work for those who need it. Those 55 and older will not see any changes. For the rest of us, the public can choose whether it wants to pay in more to make it work or to start taking it later or not. There is no legitimate choice to not deal with this."
Just being political
The big mistake, which, with good advice, should never be made: "Our primary goal is to get rid of Obama."
That is not well-stated at all. It is to get a new President who can be effective for the people.
There should be one clear site that people can go to, including the Republican politicians, to see the explanations and recommendations about what to do and how to do it, with no nastiness or "twisted" rhetoric - a site which all citizens can go to in order to understand. (The Democrats should do the same.) The Republican National Committee site is not updated, not organized well, and not easily understandable or usable by the public.
Hopefully, we can reach a place where there is more clarity and rationality that is fact-based in our discussions for the benefit of ALL of the stakeholders in the USA, so we can create a great future - and we are clearly not doing that right now!
The Rational NonPolitician
The Site
Showing posts with label Good Communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Good Communication. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Obama will beat Romney unless...
Clearly Romney would run the government for much greater benefit (see Romney Evaluation) than Obama, yet it looks like Obama will win the hearts and the personal interests of the base. (See Obama Evaluation. In that piece, I discuss why I had voted for Obama as the rational choice last time, but...)
An example, one of many, is “As to what to do for the housing industry specifically and are there things that you can do to encourage housing: One is, don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom,”
While technically correct probably, it appears heartless, especially in the state with the highest foreclosure rate in the nation.
I know Romney does care, but the voters need to know - if Romney makes it past the other Republican rivals.
If one is right plus doing what it takes to look tough to the 'right wing', one will not do well if he looks cruel and heartless - especially when that is the theme being used by the Democrats. Being "right" is the booby prize if one does not win the overall objective.
In Advice For Romney, if he doesn't hire Frank Luntz, I suggest that the way of speaking be adjusted to a more balanced and human approach - and that there be on the website an easily referenceable explanation for any strategy (not buried in a long report).
For example, in the mortgage discussion, the phraseology should at least include a "human" and/or "compassionate" statement - and a true one, of course.
"I am very concerned for those who are being foreclosed on, especially those where it was no fault of their own. I am committed to doing what is best for the greater good of all for the long term. I've thought long and hard about this.. The question here is what role government should take and what will work for the greater good for the long term. If we interfere, then the problems get prolonged and there is actually more harm. It is best to let the market work itself out, so we can recover more quickly. There is no magic solution. I would of course encourage those of our citizens who wish to voluntarily contribute to a national fund to help those who need help where help is justified - it is not appropriate to force the burden on to other citizens, I believe. I would encourage lenders to do what they can, but the Federal Government cannot force them to do this. Otherwise, the safety nets are in place for those who need it. I have a deeper explanation on MittRomney.com for those who are interested."
There is a greater moral issue here. The future of this nation. It is deteriorating for reasons on thenonpolitician.homestead.com site. Mitt Romney's management and problem solving capabilities are needed to do a "turnaround", as we cannot afford to continue the path we are on.
(Romney should also correct this, by adding a piece such as is included in Mortgages on the Rational NonPolitician site.)
Yours for rational, fact-based decisions,
The Rational NonPolitician
An example, one of many, is “As to what to do for the housing industry specifically and are there things that you can do to encourage housing: One is, don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom,”
While technically correct probably, it appears heartless, especially in the state with the highest foreclosure rate in the nation.
I know Romney does care, but the voters need to know - if Romney makes it past the other Republican rivals.
If one is right plus doing what it takes to look tough to the 'right wing', one will not do well if he looks cruel and heartless - especially when that is the theme being used by the Democrats. Being "right" is the booby prize if one does not win the overall objective.
In Advice For Romney, if he doesn't hire Frank Luntz, I suggest that the way of speaking be adjusted to a more balanced and human approach - and that there be on the website an easily referenceable explanation for any strategy (not buried in a long report).
For example, in the mortgage discussion, the phraseology should at least include a "human" and/or "compassionate" statement - and a true one, of course.
"I am very concerned for those who are being foreclosed on, especially those where it was no fault of their own. I am committed to doing what is best for the greater good of all for the long term. I've thought long and hard about this.. The question here is what role government should take and what will work for the greater good for the long term. If we interfere, then the problems get prolonged and there is actually more harm. It is best to let the market work itself out, so we can recover more quickly. There is no magic solution. I would of course encourage those of our citizens who wish to voluntarily contribute to a national fund to help those who need help where help is justified - it is not appropriate to force the burden on to other citizens, I believe. I would encourage lenders to do what they can, but the Federal Government cannot force them to do this. Otherwise, the safety nets are in place for those who need it. I have a deeper explanation on MittRomney.com for those who are interested."
There is a greater moral issue here. The future of this nation. It is deteriorating for reasons on thenonpolitician.homestead.com site. Mitt Romney's management and problem solving capabilities are needed to do a "turnaround", as we cannot afford to continue the path we are on.
(Romney should also correct this, by adding a piece such as is included in Mortgages on the Rational NonPolitician site.)
Yours for rational, fact-based decisions,
The Rational NonPolitician
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Being Presidential with no negative engagements
Being Presidential requires that one is the "adult in the room", operating without blame, rancor, twisting the facts or omitting relevant details. (Obama has totally failed that test.)
A President must not get engaged in a rancorous exchange. The Presidential person would not even look at the person who is accusing him of something, but should calmly assert what is true, referring to what "Mr. _____" says is not true and then giving the facts. He must not engage or be engaged in any rancorous conversation, nor should he get heated up. He can stand strongly for the truth and for what he believes and contrast himself with the other candidate. He must always raise the level back to leading to a constructive end point.
A President must be civil and direct and always progressive and principled.
And a President (a future one) must set an absolute standard - and not be pulled down into the morass.
The Rational NonPolitician
P.S. The tackiest bit of the Republican debates was when Rick Perry twisted the facts plus continuing on an issue that was already fully answered. He accused Romney of hiring illegals and being a hypocrite when he had asked his the company that does his gardening maintenance to remove an illegal (when it was discovered by a Boston paper) and thought the problem was solved. When he found out later that there was an illegal working for that company a year later, he fired the company. What else could he do?
Based on that conversation, I would exclude Mr. Perry for consideration as a President.
A President must not get engaged in a rancorous exchange. The Presidential person would not even look at the person who is accusing him of something, but should calmly assert what is true, referring to what "Mr. _____" says is not true and then giving the facts. He must not engage or be engaged in any rancorous conversation, nor should he get heated up. He can stand strongly for the truth and for what he believes and contrast himself with the other candidate. He must always raise the level back to leading to a constructive end point.
A President must be civil and direct and always progressive and principled.
And a President (a future one) must set an absolute standard - and not be pulled down into the morass.
The Rational NonPolitician
P.S. The tackiest bit of the Republican debates was when Rick Perry twisted the facts plus continuing on an issue that was already fully answered. He accused Romney of hiring illegals and being a hypocrite when he had asked his the company that does his gardening maintenance to remove an illegal (when it was discovered by a Boston paper) and thought the problem was solved. When he found out later that there was an illegal working for that company a year later, he fired the company. What else could he do?
Based on that conversation, I would exclude Mr. Perry for consideration as a President.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Why Bother To Do This
As I see what is happening and the irrationality and malice, I am concerned. It is true that few will read this, but I'm doing it to record what I am thinking, as an outlet and a way of "completing."
We've fallen to a lower level, I believe, of values and rational problem solving, at a great cost for all involved - which is the opposite of what we want. We want to create the greatest good for everyone involved without doing real harm to any one person. Yes, sometimes and perhaps fairly frequently, we must compromise, as we find we cannot just get our own way. And I am concerned with out and out destruction, where value is destroyed forever, hurting the base off which we make progress.
I am concerned when I see our leaders and representatives not operate with ethics and/or good reasoning based on facts and logic. We need to agree to the basic principles and priorities and then operate toward that as best we can in a cooperative manner with respect and dignity.
I hope that we can come agreement on our priorities and our mission as a country - so that we are clear and don't spend time being ideologues losing sight of the purpose.
I may just be talking with myself, but so be it. (At least, I know I have one listener.)
The Rational Problem Solver
I do hope that any commentors will engage in useful dialogue, although I suspect that some of the opinions I express could cause some people to create anger and then fiery dialogue - I hope that people choose to use emotional intelligence (Wikipedia - Emotional Intelligence ) and workable communication strategies (Good communication.)
We've fallen to a lower level, I believe, of values and rational problem solving, at a great cost for all involved - which is the opposite of what we want. We want to create the greatest good for everyone involved without doing real harm to any one person. Yes, sometimes and perhaps fairly frequently, we must compromise, as we find we cannot just get our own way. And I am concerned with out and out destruction, where value is destroyed forever, hurting the base off which we make progress.
I am concerned when I see our leaders and representatives not operate with ethics and/or good reasoning based on facts and logic. We need to agree to the basic principles and priorities and then operate toward that as best we can in a cooperative manner with respect and dignity.
I hope that we can come agreement on our priorities and our mission as a country - so that we are clear and don't spend time being ideologues losing sight of the purpose.
I may just be talking with myself, but so be it. (At least, I know I have one listener.)
The Rational Problem Solver
I do hope that any commentors will engage in useful dialogue, although I suspect that some of the opinions I express could cause some people to create anger and then fiery dialogue - I hope that people choose to use emotional intelligence (Wikipedia - Emotional Intelligence ) and workable communication strategies (Good communication.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)