Now this gets at what my initial post and observation are about,

“If Cantor included other buttons on the main page with questions like “How will I survive unemployment” or “How can I find a job”, and then linked to the parts that respond to those things, would that make it all good for you…”

The inclusion of such questions would pretty much solve it. It's a given that on policy, there would be minimal though possibly occasional, general overlap between myself and anyone looking at how to help those folks with those needs and those questions – and that is fine. There are practical checklists that he could provide for resources to check, questions to ask oneself and so on, that both utilize what's already out there in resources, and cause individuals to ask themselves hard questions too – that's also fine.

What I object to is using people's anxieties as a vehicle for Cantor's agenda. Everyone sees through that which is why I call it disingenuous. Instead, acknowledge reality-based, present tense concerns as well as future-based worries and then address all of those with actual steps people should take, can take, must take. Again – to use people's misfortune or fears as a basis to just get one's agenda across – which is, in my opinion, how Cantor's Solutions Center reads – is of little practical use to anyone.

Unless no one who was designing the site was interested in including practical steps/suggestions/recommendations and intended it to be just a vehicle for Cantor's agenda.

If the latter is the case, well, then – they succeeded in that goal, but doesn't do much for anyone else.

IOW, do you have an actual policy gripe here, something you think the current administration/Congress is doing better for the unemployed and those without homes or savings?

If Cantor included other buttons on the main page with questions like “How will I survive unemployment” or “How can I find a job”, and then linked to the parts that respond to those things, would that make it all good for you, or do you think his answers to those questions are inferior to the current status quo?

Well, good that you at least acknowledge that!

I guess it's a fundamental difference in how we see things, Jill. I have a lot more respect for someone who says what he thinks is right than those who worry more about making it SOUND right to others. I realize of course that the latter is important in politics too, but I can't imagine why you'd feel it more praiseworthy to make it seem as though he cares about certain people then for him to put forth the concrete ideas of what he thinks will work best to help those people. It's like a person on a ship is working to throw lifesavers out to drowning people and your concern is whether or not he's speaking kindly to them- to me, the action itself is the display of caring and compassion.

Now, having said that, I'm also taking issue with the way you're framing this as politically unwise too, because in order for your rationale to make sense in terms of his likelihood to succeed in reaching a majority of people, you would have to be able to make the case that the MAJORITY of voters fall into the category that you feel he offends or overlooks- and God help us if we get to the point that we have over 50% unemployment. Don't you get that point? Maybe you find that offensive- that he's going to frame the message in the way he thinks best to convince those who might support him, not the minority who probably never will (no matter how empathetic his language or approach might be.)

But just because you see that he's not doing outreach to a particular minority of voters (the have nots), doesn't mean that this isn't a politically viable outreach.

And I hardly think that the 45 % of voters who backed McCain and Palin can accurately be described as 'tiny'.

There really are only a couple of choices:

1. He only wants a certain audience to pay attention to his ideas.
2. He wants everyone to pay attention to his ideas, but he's failed to provide any appeal to tens of millions who aren't asking the questions he's composed because he's phrased his communication in a way that those individuals will not recognize as relevant to their situation and therefore Cantor's ideas will continue to not only not appeal to those Americans but those Americans won't even be able to hear what Cantor has to say because Cantor hasn't spoken in a language that would get them to even take a look.

I really don't know why you're avoiding recognizing this.

I want to get elected in my town. I need to speak to people so that they will hear me. I need to listen to people so that I know where they're coming from and what their needs are. It is that basic. Cantor shows no interest in any of that. He is only interested in pushing his agenda because he thinks it's right.

That's the making of a politician who will eventually lose, just as McCain/Palin thought that there were enough “real Americans” to whom they could appeal, they discovered that the “real America” they envisioned has gotten tinier and tinier and in fact, America has a whole bunch of other looks that must be incorporated to any vision of America.

Cantor has the same affliction.

And my comment was in regard to your use of a Biblical reference- under other circumstances I presume you wouldn't think we should look to religious texts for standards for political leaders.

And, you're right, fish in the sea, as an analogy for the needs of the unemployed, does mean jobs—of which there aren't too many new ones being created lately
Which is why Cantor explains that helping entrepreneurs is the most likely route toward creating more of them.

There is nothing on that site that would make them click on any of it (to even get to his ideas) because none of the characters are asking questions that would be asked by someone who does not have a job,
That's the first time you've expressed a criticism that's based on logic. Fine, he should think about rephrasing or providing other questions if he wants to convince jobless people that he has some decent solutions for their plight. But since the majority of the country is not in that situation, you aren't making a logical syllogism to say that “this is why he's in the minority.” Reaching the majority of people whose concerns center on keeping what they have might well reflect a pragmatic view of who his target audience is. Just because you find it offensive that he doesn't express 'feeling the pain' of others, doesn't mean that he might not be successful in reaching the majority, which is what he needs to do.

It is a ruse by Cantor to make the site just another platform for his ideology and the site is disingenuous and it fails to attend to tens of millions of Americans' needs. Which is part of why he is in the minority. And so long as he keeps talking this way, he will remain in the minority and any good ideas that linger? Won't get taken up because he's not addressing those in the most dire of circumstances.

It's actually really very sad and demonstrates an utter lack of empathy. That's a scary thing indeed. A bit like Mark Sanford and others.

“Gee,” I didn't think that compassion would fall under the separation of church and state. Sorry!

And, you're right, fish in the sea, as an analogy for the needs of the unemployed, does mean jobs—of which there aren't too many new ones being created lately

Government policies to improve the growth of the economy isn't a myth, and it isn't laissez faire economics. You appear to now be throwing out a talking point.

No, you've only shown that it does nothing to address your feelings. Address reality for unemployment = creating more jobs. How much more real can you get?

If a political party, in its implementation of what it says are its principles, wants to ignore tens of millions of people, they certainly can. And the voters, in turn, shall choose to ignore the members of that party.

Where have I heard this before?

Let me think…not in the bible, for sure

O yeah, “If you teach a man to fish…” exceptt what good is it for the man to fish when there are no fish in the sea?

Sometimes, the handholding type of approach actually impedes the government from putting the focus on the areas where it could actually do the most good (again, creating policy which helps economic growth), so your ideological view of the need for govt to 'be there for us' is diametrically opposed to ours. You are free to have your own opinion, of course, but you'll basically have to just admit that you don't accept conservatism and will never vote for Cantor or other GOP, so your advice about how to sell these ideas and candidates to people like yourself is pretty meaningless.

The advice to those two sets of people are vastly different – and Cantor says to me that members of the second group are not where he is and are not where he wants to be, with the clients. That's his choice, but, as I've written, in my opinion, it's that second group of individuals who most are in need of advice.

…

What characteristics should our elected officials be focusing on, other than the need for employment (and doing away with taxation of UE benefits?)

That is my beef with what his Solutions Center.