The Answer Is 'No'

There are highly paid minds on the political left who, having to believe in something for the coming election, consider it smart to paint the GOP (and by extension the Tea Party movement) as "the party of no."

This line of attack doesn't just reek of desperation; it stinks to the heavens of their gross misunderstanding of what is taking place among the American public.

Time and again, Democrats fire off the hateful and obscene smear "teabaggers" to try to soil the mood of the energized electorate. Calling people ugly names is what the left does when it has no other argument. Name-calling is one thing, but inaccurate name-calling is a bigger issue for Democratic designs.

I wish I could say I was astonished at the utter inability of the left to read what is going on in the country, but that failure comes from two very clear aspects of contemporary American leftism. The first is its intense desire to remake this country (you can argue its panic to do so) under Obama. The second is that Democrats are so blinded by ideology that they misread and misuse their own attack words.

The left simply cannot wrap its collective brain ("collective" is the proper word) around the concept of "the party of no." It's somewhat effective when conservatives fire back with "we are not the party of no; we are the party of hell no," and while it gets a point home strongly, it also reinforces the false belief of the left as to what the "party of no" truly is.

"No, you will not"

I, for one, will continue to hammer home the point that, for conservatives, clarity is critical. So let's be very clear. The "party of no" is meant, and should be clearly understood, as the party of "no, you will not." Yes, Republicans will come out boldly to answer to the charge that they should stand for, and not just against, something. But clarity again: conservatives are standing for something simply using the word "no."

  • No, you will not nationalize health care or manufacturing.
  • No, you will not mortgage our children's and grandchildren's futures for any reason, let alone paying off your supporters.
  • No, you will not  place limits on media that serve only to silence criticism against you.
  • No, you will not engage in a foreign policy that apologizes for our actions or undermines our allies.
  • No, you will not use the Department of Justice as a political weapon.
  • No, you will not view our Constitution as amendable at will by a handpicked judiciary without our consent.
  • No, you will not cripple our industries with federal regulations designed to promote the wishful desires of the left.
  • No, you will not play politics with our security to attempt to appeal to groups that will be beneficial to your electoral desires.

Most importantly at the top of a growing list is the direct statement of what the "party of no" truly means. 

  • No, you will not transform our great nation into a lesser one.

"Absolute personal power"

Principled adults lead by example.  It is a fundamental requirement of leadership to be able to say no. Absolute personal power comes from a simple truth: there is nothing more powerful that the ability to say no without fear of consequence. In America, at this moment, the flipside to that is also true: the consequences of not saying "no" are severe. The childish rants of the left only underscore its childish worldview and, worse, its elementary understanding of the concepts of the Constitution. Some would argue the left does understand those core concepts and simply dislikes them. I disagree. The left views the underpinnings of the Constitution as a broad outline that allows for updating to meet its demands.

If a child lives in a home where the house rules are not enforced firmly, the child believes it has the authority to determine, to some level, his or her own boundaries. Frankly, that last sentence defines leftist parenting. Principled adults use "no" firmly to establish that there is a solid foundation and that nothing will be allowed to weaken it. This administration has sought to "transform" this nation by "change" through reworking our foundational support. It's the one true point of clarity from the left. And those hammer blows have been met by adults who are saying, firmly, "no."

"No" stands for something. It stands for the intentions of the founders and the rock of the republic. "No" stands for America -- for her ideals, her world leadership, her strength, and her light. On November 2 Americans will be faced with the question of whether they truly want to continue the current goal of "transformation." When handed a ballot, I would hope they would say to themselves, the answer is no.

John Fricke is a national radio and TV host and conservative opinion commentator. His website is www.johnfricke.pedia.com.
There are highly paid minds on the political left who, having to believe in something for the coming election, consider it smart to paint the GOP (and by extension the Tea Party movement) as "the party of no."

This line of attack doesn't just reek of desperation; it stinks to the heavens of their gross misunderstanding of what is taking place among the American public.

Time and again, Democrats fire off the hateful and obscene smear "teabaggers" to try to soil the mood of the energized electorate. Calling people ugly names is what the left does when it has no other argument. Name-calling is one thing, but inaccurate name-calling is a bigger issue for Democratic designs.

I wish I could say I was astonished at the utter inability of the left to read what is going on in the country, but that failure comes from two very clear aspects of contemporary American leftism. The first is its intense desire to remake this country (you can argue its panic to do so) under Obama. The second is that Democrats are so blinded by ideology that they misread and misuse their own attack words.

The left simply cannot wrap its collective brain ("collective" is the proper word) around the concept of "the party of no." It's somewhat effective when conservatives fire back with "we are not the party of no; we are the party of hell no," and while it gets a point home strongly, it also reinforces the false belief of the left as to what the "party of no" truly is.

"No, you will not"

I, for one, will continue to hammer home the point that, for conservatives, clarity is critical. So let's be very clear. The "party of no" is meant, and should be clearly understood, as the party of "no, you will not." Yes, Republicans will come out boldly to answer to the charge that they should stand for, and not just against, something. But clarity again: conservatives are standing for something simply using the word "no."

  • No, you will not nationalize health care or manufacturing.
  • No, you will not mortgage our children's and grandchildren's futures for any reason, let alone paying off your supporters.
  • No, you will not  place limits on media that serve only to silence criticism against you.
  • No, you will not engage in a foreign policy that apologizes for our actions or undermines our allies.
  • No, you will not use the Department of Justice as a political weapon.
  • No, you will not view our Constitution as amendable at will by a handpicked judiciary without our consent.
  • No, you will not cripple our industries with federal regulations designed to promote the wishful desires of the left.
  • No, you will not play politics with our security to attempt to appeal to groups that will be beneficial to your electoral desires.

Most importantly at the top of a growing list is the direct statement of what the "party of no" truly means. 

  • No, you will not transform our great nation into a lesser one.

"Absolute personal power"

Principled adults lead by example.  It is a fundamental requirement of leadership to be able to say no. Absolute personal power comes from a simple truth: there is nothing more powerful that the ability to say no without fear of consequence. In America, at this moment, the flipside to that is also true: the consequences of not saying "no" are severe. The childish rants of the left only underscore its childish worldview and, worse, its elementary understanding of the concepts of the Constitution. Some would argue the left does understand those core concepts and simply dislikes them. I disagree. The left views the underpinnings of the Constitution as a broad outline that allows for updating to meet its demands.

If a child lives in a home where the house rules are not enforced firmly, the child believes it has the authority to determine, to some level, his or her own boundaries. Frankly, that last sentence defines leftist parenting. Principled adults use "no" firmly to establish that there is a solid foundation and that nothing will be allowed to weaken it. This administration has sought to "transform" this nation by "change" through reworking our foundational support. It's the one true point of clarity from the left. And those hammer blows have been met by adults who are saying, firmly, "no."

"No" stands for something. It stands for the intentions of the founders and the rock of the republic. "No" stands for America -- for her ideals, her world leadership, her strength, and her light. On November 2 Americans will be faced with the question of whether they truly want to continue the current goal of "transformation." When handed a ballot, I would hope they would say to themselves, the answer is no.

John Fricke is a national radio and TV host and conservative opinion commentator. His website is www.johnfricke.pedia.com.