John Boener = crybaby

Why Republicans Get to Cry

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen- ... 95770.html

On 60 Minutes Sunday you may have seen a story about John Boehner, presumptive speaker of the House. He cried a few times, almost losing it once. And yet he's one of the most powerful people in Washington.

While it's interesting that men like George Bush, Mitt Romney, and John Boehner are allowing themselves to cry publicly, behind this seemingly harmless shift in acceptance is one of the ways that the Republicans are managing the narrative. They know that President Obama can't cry, at least not without risk. He is considered a weak compromiser, whereas John Boehner says that he does not like the word compromise. He'll consider "common ground," but that's all.

When you're perceived as weak, crying makes you appear even weaker. When you aren't leading effectively, crying can be that last straw. But if you are developing a persona of toughness, it pays to shed a tear now and then.

Men get to cry with impunity lately, especially those considered tough, stiff, distant, difficult, demanding or dispassionate. The context matters; nowadays in politics talking about old friends, soldiers, children, harm done to one's family, or personal challenges provide opportunities when a tear or two can do more good than harm.

Republican crying is more acceptable than Democratic crying because liberals are expected to be softer - "bleeding hearts." Republicans are perceived as tougher, less sensitive, often more concerned with business priorities. So, crying works well for them. It's the violation of expectations that makes conservative crying persuasive. It's the beauty of not being predictable.

Women, whether in business or politics, are in a more difficult position with regard to any sort of emoting. Since it is expected of them, crying doesn't serve as a balancing technique. It merely confirms that they are soft. Of course, if a woman like Margaret Thatcher were to shed a tear, it would violate expectations and in the right context might serve her well -- once or twice.

Yet the tough Nancy Pelosi won't take that risk. When asked about John Boehner's tendency to cry, Pelosi responded:

You know what? He is known to cry. He cries sometimes when we're having a debate on bills. If I cry, it's about the personal loss of a friend or something like that. But when it comes to politics -- no, I don't cry. I would never think of crying about any loss of an office, because that's always a possibility, and if you're professional, then you deal with it professionally.
You can't blame Pelosi. She remembers what happened to Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans know they have a strategy most Democrats won't use. To put it in communication terms, crying on one side of the aisle but not the other indicates that Democrats are keeping their communication repertoire limited, while the Republicans are broadening theirs.

This is interesting if you're an observer of human nature, much more so if you are an observer of politics. Republicans have learned the value of having it both ways. They realize that showing your soft side in public is an effective way to rebut perceptions that you are heartless. They figure: Who can dislike a man who cries when he sees a child reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?

These Republicans grasp that human complexity can be a strategy. While the president keeps his cool and dispassionately delivers his views, some people are impressed. But it's ironic that the "soft" party is acting tough when they're not, and the "tough" party is acting sensitive.

It's enough to make you cry.

Wait a minute...

I though liberals were supposed to be the pussies!?!

:?

Boehner & Beck
both full of crocodile tears
waaaaah

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i wish both of them would put the american people ahead of their own personal agendas. but i guess without the american people neither would be where they are today.....they make a nice living off of their supporters...

Well, when Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama put the wishes of the American people before THEIR own agendas, maybe we can begin to hold him to a higher standard?

What exactly is the point of this thread? This is like a bunch of schoolchildren making fun of someone in the playground.

Electric_Delta wrote:

What exactly is the point of this thread? This is like a bunch of schoolchildren making fun of someone in the playground.

Its easy for people to zero in on something that is considered a 'weak' emotion in politics. It really doesnt have a point I guess. However, I watched the whole cbs video link that was provided by the OP, and it was interesting (the end of the video) where they highlight the fact that a politician crying in the past was a sign of weakness and could ruin them. But they go on to show Hilary, Dole, and others crying in front of the camera. Many of them seem heartfelt.. well, not the Bush segment, but I dont think he was really crying in the segment. (although he probably has the most to cry over in the recent history of the US).

Electric_Delta wrote:

breath123 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Well, when Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama put the wishes of the American people before THEIR own agendas, maybe we can begin to hold him to a higher standard?

Yes, their agenda sucks, trying to make sure you don't die or go into serious debt if you get sick! Keeping food, water and air safe? I mean who are they fooling?

What about the rich? Without tax cuts, they might actually have to get the gold plated fixtures for their private jets as opposed to the solid gold ones! It's an outrage!!

Sure the wars and the billions of dollars we are borrowing from the Chinese to fund the tax cuts are going to run our children into a ditch but not nearly as much as medicare and unemployment.

When will the poor finally step up and pay their fair share? WHEN?! Why must the people with everything be counted on to make a reasonable contribution? When will the madness stop?

good day sir.

I SAID GOOD DAY!!

(douche)

Wow, at least you don't resort to name calling. I'm not even going to dignify your response by debating it. You've proven you have nothing to say.

you are absolutely right.

I have facts on my side. I don't need to stoop to name calling to beat you in a debate.

I wholeheartedly apologize.