EMail Doodlings - Political Consistency breeds Political Trust - Granite Grok

EMail Doodlings – Political Consistency breeds Political Trust

The latter, Trust, unless built upon blind faith (another topic), is only possible if there is a proven history in word and deed of Consistency.  I’ve been writing about this symbiosis and dependence between these two ideas for a while and we had a bit (just a wee bit) of a back and forth on this.  I think that, too often, the Republican Party just doesn’t get it – that the Politicians (and Politicians in waiting and the Operatives behind the Politicians) have forgotten what their Base wants (er, at least this part of the Base) in their hellbent race to do what they think is the ONLY important thing on the docket – WIN.  We all know that, understand that is a prereq, but for US, it is ONLY a prereq: what do you do afterwards.

After the November election, the GOP was all afflutter with “what went wrong” and have spent MILLIONS and millions of man-hours.  I can tell you, easy peasy, what has gone wrong:

  1. You didn’t give people a reason to vote FOR the Party
  2. Worse, the base that sat on their hands decided that they can’t trust you to do what you said you’d do.

Number 2 is more important than Number 1.  Case in point – Obamacare.  They haven’t repealed it (though they campaigned on doing so), they won’t defund it, and given Obama’s flagrant lawlessness with respect to the actual Obamacare authorizing legislation, they won’t impeach.  In short, they don’t stand up for their promises and they don’t stand up for the Principles they say they “live by”.  In short, when there is no Consistency between Principles, Words, and Deeds (legislative votes), there is no Trust.  And without Trust, they lose the Base – and lose the election.  This is not rocket science – why vote for people that won’t do what they say?

Case in point – another (short) email exchange:

– Skip

Mike:

Subject: Re: [GrokCrew] Re: Palin says Ayotte should face primary

Go for it.
Also include these notes: Ayotte recognized from the beginning that she needed out of state bucks to win, hence the frequent appearances of ol’ spud face on the campaign trail with her.That alone should have been a warning to Palin, who already knew about establishment treachery.
Now, this – I got one of those damsel in distress, one notch less screechy than Bachmann, “help, they’re running mean adverts against me!” Emails, so, of course I wrote back to the campaign. Guess what, like all RINO senators, the reply address is a dead letter box – here’s what I wrote:
Dear Senator,
We’re busy fighting Bloomberg and his lefty creeps, but you have a mixed message problem. We thank you for your stand on the 2nd amendment, but we’re frankly puzzled that you’re on board with a terrible immigration bill. As an attorney, if you presented a brief that looked like the immigration bill, or like ObamaCare, the judge would laugh you out of court.
You know what a brief is, you know what clarity is – the immigration bill isn’t brief, it isn’t clear, and its got a lot of at garbage in it. The answer to a bill like this isn’t “no”,  it’s “HELL NO”! Your message problem?  It isn’t good enough to simply suck less than Jeanne Shaheen, it is essential to have steadfast principles.  Don’t let being a defense hawk blind you to the serious problems that McCain and Graham have with Principles.
Feel free to use it. I have something else to post when I get home from errands.

Tom:

Nice Mike – very nice and to the heart of the bullshite.

Steve:

 I think it’s time to take it musical.  To Madonna’s “Like a Virgin”:

Like a RINO, Hey!

In the Senate for the very first time

Chuckie Schumner thinks I’m Fine.

Like a RINO. OOh!

Skip:

Chocolate milk out the nose snort time!

Scott:

Alas, you’re right. On many points, I voted for Ovide in the primary, but did vote for her in the general. Had to. Reminds me of a phrase attributed to Irving Kristol:

There are two kinds of Republicans anti-state and anti-left.

She’s the latter and thinks there’s no problem with Big Gov, but that her side can run it better than the left.

Wrong.

Tom:

That’s about it…she’s anti-left, but also a corporatist, industrial-military complex, country-club Republican, who has lost complete sight of the values of the Constitution, in spite of thinking she hasn’t (did she ever have them at the right level?)

Skip:

Which fits in what Mike had in his post:  It isn’t good enough to simply suck less than Jeanne Shaheen.

What do we type of folks want in our politicians?  Tell us what you are forTell us what you are againstPut them into concreteDo not mix them once obtaining office.

We will listen to you closely.  We will watch your bill writing, actions, and votes even more closely.  Why?

You want our Trust? We want your actions and votes to be Consistent to what you sold us during the campaign (and to our political beliefs).  Do not mix, stir, or shake.  Just do what you said you would do, and don’t do the things you said you wouldn’t.

If you observed that, we wouldn’t have to write posts like this.

It isn’t good enough to simply suck less than Jeanne Shaheen” – I gotta think of something to tag that with to end this post-in-process.

See, I CAN “write short” (but there is just so much more to say….boo-hoo).


Mike:

 I don’t want my reps fighting over how to use the levers of power – I want them to take out a thermic lance and cut them off at the root!


Skip:

And we make it explicit that we would withhold an endorsement (for whatever it is worth)

Like this guy: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/a_big_rip_to_the_gop.html

It may be time for another party….

>