Skip to comments.In a switch, GOP's Michele Bachmann talks of empathy
Posted on 06/16/2011 6:25:06 PM PDT by rob777
In her first televised interview since declaring her presidential candidacy, Michele Bachmann accused President Obama of having a shocking" lack of empathy toward Americans victimized by the struggling economy.
I talk to people. I care about people, the Minnesota Republican told Fox News Channels Sean Hannity Wednesday evening. The president has no understanding of what is happening in real people's lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
This might be the candidate we need. She’s conservative enough, she’s smart enough and if Obozo attacks her, he looks like he’s beating up on a girl.
We don't need nor want government empathy. What we need is for government to get back in its Constitutional cage, stay there, and stick to what we've delegated it via the Constitution...and leave us alone to live our lives.
In a switch?
Bamstervich and his ilk are hysterically laughing their assess off because they fooled the American people with the promise of shovel ready jobs. Obama and the unions got the money, and the only thing that got shoveled was the mountain of manure on the people who wanted to go to work. Yeah Bamabitch, you and your boot licking hacks are really funny people.
With his profound experience in the Chicago ‘hood, Baraq gets a MSM free pass on anything to do with the downtrodden.
Words that haven’t been used by the MSM since 08:
recovery for Wall $treet but not for Main Street
“Well, I guess it really wasn’t shovel-ready, yuk, yuk, yuk.”
Empathy is a good thing. How liberals deal with it is another.
Michele is no ‘girl’, she’s every bit a woman in full. She is very conservative, but accepting Ed Rollins to run her campaign is a flaw in judgment I find too perplexing.
Don't get confused with personal or individual empathy, which, of course is a good thing, and "government empathy."
Communism and Marxism are founded on such confusion and such empathy and that's how these Leftists have made inroads here. We don't need nor want government's "empathy" or "help." As Reagan once said, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'Hi , I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Over the centuries, thousands upon millions of dead bodies have accumulated as a result of believing those words.
Rollins is no better or worse than anyone else out there doing the same job. Strategists are sleazy creatures. Carville, Buchannan, Morris, Trippi etc.
Randy Scheunemann was Sarah Palin’s foreign policy advisor and he’s a Soros lackey. Doesn’t mean anything about Palin, just shows what these pure political animals are. After the campaign, Scheunemann went to work for Christine O’Donnel.
She’s talking PERSONAL empathy. Folks are sick of “Government” empathy.
I’m sorry, but I’ve just heard too much CNN crap from Rollin’s mouth. I like Bachmann but I find Rollins to be ‘a bridge too far’.
Rollins came a Fred Thompson stalking horse candidacy away from getting Huck the bid in 2008 out of nowhere. Don’t underestimate him. He is a sleazeball but he is good at his job.
That would be a sad mistake. Let Obama dig his own grave which he's doing very well. This other stuff starts to sound like RINO-speak.
We should be about getting government back within its constitutional limits and giving the country back to the states and the people, not feeding them with more of these poison entitlement "we love you" pellets. The government doesn't love you - never has, never will. That's the liberal's lie and is not what's needed here.
>> In a switch?
Geez, no bias in THAT headline or anything.
Conservatives are naturally empathetic to others. Look at Free Republic, every day we see people offering to pray or help others in any number of ways.
Someone saw me mention spending my last few bucks in cash one day and wrote to offer help. I didn’t need it or accept it but I did appreciate it a great deal.
Obama's "coldness" can hurt him all by itself. The conservative message is LESS government not more government or POTUS "empathy." We don't need POTUS empathy. Bush showed us POTUS "empathy" with his "compassionate conservatism". It's about B.S., MORE government, and more misery.
Indeed, but the Leftists want the World to believe otherwise.
It’s just confusing the issue. America is about freedom and bravery. We need to deal with our problems and keep FEDERAL government within its constitutional limits. The STATES can do whatever its citizens want to deal with what ever each state choose. Decentralized power is more effective and much more “empathetic.”
Guess I’m just not easily confused. I know exactly what she’s talking about.
Our jet set party president is living the life of the rich and famous on the taxpayer dime while continuing to push policies that harm Americans.
Empathy: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings,
thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and
experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.
Don't see anything in there about redistributing ones hard earned income to others.
Thou shalt not steal.
But we need to keep our eye on the ball and our message clear. It is LIMITED, DECENTRALIZED republican government that allows the freedom and wealth to do what people do best - live their lives and privately help others do so as well. AND NOT because government tells you too. It doesn't matter how personally "warm" the POTUS is. That was Bush's thing - "compassionate conservatism."
Things get very confused when politicians start claiming a need for "empathy" -that's how the liberal's make headway. The candidate must communicate that his/her policies are the most compassionate/empathetic thing they could have. We don't need "personal empathy" from government.
Liberal example of empathy. - Take guns away from everyone for the sake of the children.
Conservative example of empathy. - Teach people to use guns safely so threats can be neutralized for all and punish people who harm children more harshly.
Reagan was called the great communicator because he communicated directly with the American people about why his conservative polices would help them and why the liberals were liars who used emotional appeals to gain more power.
We need to be about clear, unmuddled message. Obama's personal coldness should help our cause, but we should not incorporate it into our message - it creates confusion.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.
Guess there is a good reason they call themselves the left.
I can see where you can read it like that, but one could also argue that we need a leader who has empathy for getting people back to work by empowering the private sector (i.e. tax cuts and repeal regulations). I think of Reagan as a person with empathy, but he believe in the freedom of the people and the free market. As he said, government is not the solution, it is the problem.
She is smart to go after him on an area where he is vulnerable.
The only way to beat this sob is to expose him.
I mean all of it; the raising and mentoring by Muslims, radicals, Communists and America hating thugs, cheating his way into a senatorship, former membership in a socialist party, using American taxpayer dollars to campaign for the murderous Muslim/ Communist Odinga and violating the Logan Act several times, ad naseum.
Yeah, I have no love for Rollins. So far that is the only thing that has come up about her that I find.....perplexing, is a good word for it.
Yep. And quite honestly I don’t think the general public cares one bit about political consultants.
Exactly. Obama is a cruel, cold, heartless human being. I can’t believe his personal poll number is still at 49% Someone needs to nail him on how detached he is from the problems this country faces.
“We need to be about clear, unmuddled message. Obama’s personal coldness should help our cause, but we should not incorporate it into our message - it creates confusion.”
I think you’re missing the bigger point. His personal coldness is one thing- but his complete indifference to the millions of Americans that are barely getting by while he piles on more and more job-killing regulations and destructive policies (partying and golfing through it all)- is something else.
The article is total rubbish- just the start of the hack jobs on Bachman, Gaylord Perry couldn’t put spin on it like this!
Like GOPers are “against” empathy, please
Oliphant is a hack
OK, so what should our response and message be?
1) A continual question to the American people: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
2) Then we should point out,
Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose yours.
And recovery is when Obama loses his.
3) Next we should explain, The best anti-poverty program known to man is a capitalist economy free of government interference and high taxes. Only the free market creates wealth while socialism and big government and its "empathy" creates only poverty. The most compassionate, empathetic thing government can do is GET OUT OF THE WAY and QUIT TRYING TO "HELP" US.
We don't need government "empathy" or a POTUS that "cares" (read Bush's socialist "compassionate conservatism") - we need government off our backs. Otherwise you muddy the water and create confusion, which is what the liberals and big government thrive on.
I keep hearing this on FR. I don’t know the history. Can you fill me in?
I agree with 99% of what you are saying (and no, I don’t mean it to mean stupid, phony, Big Gov “Compassionate Conservatism”).
Limited government with a free-market economy- and an understanding that charity is there to help those in need, and that the family has the responsibility to raise children, and not the amorphous “state”- is the ideal form of government.
The problem that we continually run up against is that the left has been extremely successful (especially considering that only 20% of the people identify themselves as “Liberal”) in convincing the public that it- and not Conservatism- “cares” for the people.
You know the drill: “If Conservatives had their way, six year olds would be working eighteen-hour-a-day shifts in polluting factories to ‘maximize profits’ for greedy dog-eat-dog Capitalists, autistic children would be thrown out into the streets to fend for themselves for health care, all kids in public schools would be forced to pray to Jesus (instead of doing what they are supposed to be forced into... reading about Johnny and his transgendered father), blah, blah, blah”. And the “benevolent”, socialist government is there to protect people from these eeeeevil folks.
For so long many Conservatives (not Reagan, of course) have sat back and allowed the left to position itself this way. There’s no need for this. Once Conservatives claim this mantle- and I absolutely don’t mean by pandering, or by Big Gov programs- through proper communication, the left will largely be finished.
Right. Of course we should tell people that what we stand for is the betterment of all, but it's through freedom not more government. If you go down that "compassionate" road too far, however, you're accused of not caring enough and not enough "empathy" without this or that government program. Freedom, it must be said, is not for the faint of heart. It takes guts and courage. To be the land of the free, we must be the home of the brave. This "empathy" stuff coming from government is really a weak and weakening message IMO.
Reagan won the election but also won his eight years of over-the-top popularity and skewered the Leftists because he clearly communicated directly with the American people all the time (I feel Palin is the one who does this best now). He basically communicated two things:
1) What we conservatives stand for: Freedom to keep your hard-earned money and live your lives the way you choose.
2) What the Liberals stand for: They say "empathy" but don't believe them - they use that to take power and your hard-earned money to rule over you.
By about halfway through Reagan's presidency, the term "Liberals" was pretty much a dirty word and the Leftists ran from the label. Reagan did it by constantly shining the light on who these guys really are and then who we Americans really are. Make this our message and we win. "Empathy" is off point and too "nanny state"-ish.
I'm going on and on but I have to add something. Reagan was smarter than the average bear - he just didn't let on as such. He believed in precision whether is t was precision in the intelligence community or precision in thought and message. We need precision, not vagueness. Libs love vagueness. "Empathy" in government confuses things, is vague, and tends to play into the Left.
“I have to add something. Reagan was smarter than the average bear - he just didn’t let on as such. He believed in precision whether is t was precision in the intelligence community or precision in thought and message. We need precision, not vagueness. Libs love vagueness. “Empathy” in government confuses things, is vague, and tends to play into the Left.”
You make good points throughout, and I think we’re essentially getting at the same things. I just think in Bachmann’s case (being the most representative of the Tea Party movement currently in the race, along with Herman Cain), there is a separate element. The left- especially recently- has demonized the Tea Party as a purely “slash-and-burn” movement designed merely to dramatically cut the size of Federal government, “making millions of Americans needlessly suffer in the process.”
Making massive cuts to bloated government, however, is predicated on the assumption that we will follow Reagan’s successful, and repeatable, model of creating 21 million jobs (and not the piddly amount “created” under Obama- which is actually a net loss of millions of jobs)- and this is where “precision” is needed. I’m ok with calling it “empathy” for understanding the concerns of everyday Americans, but I think your concerns with the term are certainly valid, especially if the term starts morphing into social policies.
You know what Reagan did? He’d talk about a real Average Joe, Mr. or Mrs. So and So in Such and Such Town, what their aspirations were, what their dreams were. He would show what they did and how they didn’t want government hand outs, just to be left alone to live their dreams. Then he would talk about all Americans everywhere with similar dreams of owning their own homes and working hard to provide for their futures - that America was about THEM and their freedom not government. In doing so, he demonstrated what we’re all about. More effective, clearer than vague Leninist “empathy” (”to the masses”) or “compassion.”
compassionate conservatism part II?