It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RNC rejects joint 'civility' statement

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

RNC rejects joint 'civility' statement


www.politico.com

The Republican National Committee has rejected a proposal from its Democratic counterpart to sign a joint “civility” statement, POLITICO has learned.

Various members of the DNC — including Chairman Tim Kaine, Executive Director Jen O’Malley Dillon and Communications Director Brad Woodhouse — contacted their respective RNC counterparts this week in hopes of getting RNC Chairman Michael Steele to co-sign a document with Kaine that, in part, called for “elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry.”
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 27/3/2010 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Note: Prior to submission, I have done a search using the terms: RNC, DNC, civility agreement; and yielded zero results, so my apologies if this is in fact a duplicate posting.

So, by all appearances, the DNC has requested the RNC to sign an agreement that simply states that the RNC is opposed to the actions of Tea Party Protesters that has led to violence, threats, and unacceptable language. Further, this agreement would stipulate that all RNC members and DNC members agree to act in a "civil manner" here forward and conduct themselves as the professionals the American people expect them to be.

Interestingly, the RNC was presented with this agreement on Friday and refused to sign it.

My first reaction was that this was a symbolic "peace treaty" of sorts to clear the air after the passage of healthcare reform in an effort to move forward with any and all future legislation to be decided upon by the current administration -- so why wouldn't the RNC sign?

Then, I began to actually read the agreement. Here are a few snippets of what the agreement contained:


Various members of the DNC — including Chairman Tim Kaine, Executive Director Jen O’Malley Dillon and Communications Director Brad Woodhouse — contacted their respective RNC counterparts this week in hopes of getting RNC Chairman Michael Steele to co-sign a document with Kaine that, in part, called for “elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry.”

Read more: www.politico.com...


Set an example of civility that is expected from the citizens of this country. OK. I'm with you so far.... This could have simply been written as: "Grow up and act your age...." but I digress.

Onto the next portion of the agreement:


“We also call on all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism,


Hmmm.... OK, well now it's getting a little more weighty since somehow an agreement between the DNC and RNC has expanded to an agreement with the American people. But, nonetheless, who wants to encourage violence? We already have laws that ban such acts of violence, but perhaps we needed a reminder?! Moving on...


and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior,” read the proposed joint statement,...


The above statement is exactly where the DNC starts losing my support of such an agreement.

While, I'm sure that the intended meaning is to curtail extreme and violent rhetoric, that is not what it actually says. Nor, given the current state of chaos in our government, should anyone simply assume this administration means anything specifically when clearly the EXACT wording has been left to be, well, vague.

While I admit that this document has no legal bearing, at least I can't see how it would, I am rather uncomfortable with ANY agreement written OR signed by our elected officials of any party that requests: "scaling back rhetoric" since that comes very close to scaling back our first amendment rights.

According to Politico and the DNC, the RNC has rejected the signing of this agreement. Here is the DNC's statement reflecting their "disappointment" :


“It’s very disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that Chairman Steele, who authored a fundraising presentation that depicted the President as the Joker, the Speaker of the House as Cruella de Vil, raised money online showing the Speaker on fire and said she should be put before a firing squad would refuse to do a joint statement with Chairman Kaine to ratchet down the rhetoric and condemn the violence and threats which Republican supporters have engaged in since the passage of health reform,” Woodhouse said.


When reading the above, three things immediately stand out:

1. Portraying the President as a Joker and Pelosi as Cruella de Vil may be childish, but is that not our First Amendment right?

2. that the RNC said that Pelosi would be "put before a firing squad"

3. "violence that Republican supporters" have engaged in. So, the ONLY protesters to healthcare reform are SOLELY Republican? Surely the democratic party can't wish to label ALL protesters and ALL violent offenders to healthcare as Republican only, can he? Apparently so.

Lastly, and at this point I can see why the RNC would reject such an agreement, the DNC has drafted this letter as a tongue lashing to Republicans while not addressing their own campaign efforts to raise money on the extreme actions of some protesters.


The RNC raised more than $1 million in a “Fire Nancy Pelosi” fundraising campaign that depicted the House Speaker surrounded by flames.


Shame on you!


The DNC meanwhile was criticized by Republicans for sending out an e-mail from Kaine to its donors under the subject line “Heroes under attack” urging its supporters to defend the threatened members via funds to the committee.


Shame on you too!


Is this a simple peace treaty of sorts?

Is this the type of agreement that the DNC intends to have signed and later hold up during campaigning to be used against their opposing candidates?

Is it fair to label ALL opposing votes to healthcare reform as solely Republicans?

Any thoughts?






www.politico.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 27-3-2010 by lpowell0627]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I've seen the Pelosi supposedly on fire ad and she wasn't on fire, they had cartoon flames as a background and she was all pisssd off so it looked lke she was exploding mad. NOT like she was burning.

The DNC has alot of nerve telling citizency to act civil after they bent,broke the constitution to pass this "health" bill! when are they going to ac civil. and now they are acting like "heroes" and victims???
screw them!


[edit on 27-3-2010 by joey_hv]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Here's my thoughts... I find it ironic that the Democrats would put forth a civility agreement after their behavior for the past 10 years. It REEKS of HYPOCRISY!
Their constitutents hung Bush in Effigy, protested with placards of Republicans in rifle scope cross hairs, burned effigies etc... and NOW they want a civitlity agreement!? BS!!!


This is political posturing, plain and simple. They are scared, and they should be. They haven't done a single thing to bring the republicans to the table and now they will reap what they sow. I am an Independent who loathes the Republicans as much as Democrats and I can see right through this ruse. Sorry Democrats, this just makes you look even more desperate!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

...to ratchet down the rhetoric and condemn the violence and threats which Republican supporters have engaged in since the passage of health reform,” Woodhouse said.


That statement alone tells me what the Democrats plan on doing with such an agreement. They're not coming to the table for an honest agreement or in good faith. They're just going to find a way to politicize it and blame the GOP for everything, so I can't really blame the GOP for rejecting it.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The reason the democrat socialist communist party wants this is to tie the hands of any dissent by the "angry, and rightfully so" Republican party and the people at large. There were no such pleas when they wanted the assassinate Bush. When they said all kinds of hateful things about him. So they're just a bunch of hypocrites.

I say they deserve what they get. The people and the Republican party have the "Constitutional" right to say what they think of these Obamanites, the worshipers of his imperial majesty, king and dictator in chief, Barak Hussein Obama.






[edit on 27-3-2010 by Fromabove]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 
AND they are insinuating that NONE of the anti health bill demonstartors are angry democrat supporters.
I have seen plenty of dems at the tea parties i have gone to.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


I agree with you.

Further, Michael Steele (RNC Chairman) has, repeatedly, denounced the actions of violent protesters and called anyone threatening any politician an "idiot". He has done so on at least three major news shows that I am aware of.

I personally think that this agreement is laden with hypocrisy and reeks of an agenda.

I am not at all comfortable with the fact that the Democrats who made their own bed and now have to lie in it expect everyone to now jump to their rescue and curtail our first amendment rights simply because the DNC is "tired" of the rhetoric and the DNC simply wants to move on and forget it ever happened.

Lastly, I am fairly certain that there are a number of Independents that also opposed healthcare reform as currently presented yet their feelings and reservations don't even warrant a mention? Instead, they have become part of the "Republican" agenda by merely opposing healthcare?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by joey_hv
reply to post by vor78
 
AND they are insinuating that NONE of the anti health bill demonstartors are angry democrat supporters.
I have seen plenty of dems at the tea parties i have gone to.





I agree. The people I talk to who voted for the dictator tell me they wished they hadn't if they realized this was what it was going to be like. One woman even apologized for voting for the man and his party. The she told me that she would never vote for him or his party again. When I asked why she said because of the way they treat people and for what they did in the House and Senate. A few of them took issue with how they (the democrats) were mistreating civility and keeping the Republicans out of any political decisions. That person was very angry, and she was a democrat prior to this year. Amazing. I can't wait to see what November brings us if more are like the ones I've talked to.






[edit on 27-3-2010 by Fromabove]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


To me, that statement says nothing more than: "Anyone opposing healthcare reform should now shut-up!"

Further, I can completely see it being used during the next election if anyone dare say anything negative against healthcare.

I think that it was an attempt by the DNC to remove healthcare from the next election entirely.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by joey_hv
 


I agree, some of the protestors are indeed angry democrats. Democrats are angry that health care reform didn't go far enough. The health care reform package that was just adopted is missing a very crucial element which is a not-for-profit, "Public Option." However, we democrats are indeed pleased that the the Obama administration has finally waken up to the fact that the only thing the republicans have to offer is obstructionism.

The Republican party has offered no solutions, only slogans and empty ones at that. Don't get me wrong, it's not that they don't want to offer solutions, it's just that they don't have any. The term I use to describe them best is, "Scary Ignorant." If they insist on running candidates like Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin etc... Then the "Grand Old Party" is surely destined to become the "Grand Obsolete Party."

Conservatism, so easy a caveman can do it!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

The Republican party has offered no solutions, only slogans and empty ones at that.

Conservatism, so easy a caveman can do it!


Its only hypocrisy when a conservative does it. Got it.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
And with all the effort of the TPM, and the GOP has put into tearing down the dembs, progressives, and new ideas...

When the voters reject the strategy of hate and negativity like they did in o8; who will you blame. The GOP is obsolete unless they can come up with a program that moves the nation forward. In our local elections the Republicans are afraid to even put on their campaign material that they are GOP.

If the GOP continues to reject gays and minorities they are toast. It's a numbers game now.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


It's Hypocrisy no matter who does it, plain and simple. I'm not sure I get your point.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by joey_hv
 


The Republican party has offered no solutions, only slogans and empty ones at that. Don't get me wrong, it's not that they don't want to offer solutions, it's just that they don't have any.


If the Republican party didn't have or offer ANY solutions, then how did some of their recommendations manage to make it into the final bill?



Republicans were not impressed with President Obama’s announcement that he would incorporate four new Republican ideas and strip out legislative dealmaking from his health care proposal in an effort aimed at winning the smallest margin needed for passing a pared-down bill.

Link: sroblog.com...

Emphasis added by me.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


All the postings of first amendment...the RNC plainly stated in the article why they would not sign it...




RNC Communications Director Doug Heye told POLITICO that Steele chose not to agree to the statement because

“we don’t need to do anything on their schedule or on their timetable.”



Yes...that was the well thought out response to a call for civility.

They are children.

The party of "NO!"

and soon to be obsolete...to everyone's detriment.

What has become of the house that Abe Lincoln built?




top topics



 
2

log in

join