Sometimes "No" Is More Than a One Syllable Word

Here's the stick:

Since the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, the Democrats have once again begun to sing in unison that the Republicans are the "Party of No." The Republicans, they assert, have no positive agenda and aren't willing to work in a "bipartisan" fashion in the cause of the American people. Instead, according to the Democrat narrative, the Republicans penchant for voting "no" along party lines is purely obstructionist and tantamount to social treason.

Here's the carrot:

Since the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, Mr. Obama has decided to invite the Congressional Republicans to a televised series of meetings on how to move forward with the things he says are important to the national interest. His newly discovered sense of "bipartisanship" supposedly reflects Mr. Obama's sincere desire to cooperate with Republicans in enacting a massive new government "health care" program, which would no doubt be a prelude to a massive new government "jobs" bill, and various other forms of government intrusion in the lives of the American people.

Here's the gotcha:

According to the Wall Street Journal, "The main weapon at Mr. Obama's disposal is voter anger, ..., which he hopes can be used as a cudgel against the opposition party ..." According to Mr. Obama: "If the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business... then the responsibility to govern (belongs to them and) ...Just saying no ... (is) not leadership." In other words, if the Democrats can't have things their own way, they intend to accuse the Republicans of putting politics before country.

Here's the truth:

Fully 75% of the American people are angry at the government's current policies because they reek of big-government tyranny. Mr. Obama's invitation to bipartisanship does not signal a Clintonesque triangulation to political moderation, nor does it bespeak a genuine change of heart about governing in accordance with the centrist wishes of a majority of the American people. As Charles Krauthammer recently noted, it is a transparent attempt to launch a diversionary attack against the Republicans in order to provide political cover for the deeply unpopular leftist policies of the Democrats who are in control of the federal government. In responding to Mr. Obama's political hocus-pocus, the Republicans would do well to remember that when it is a response to tyranny, the word "no" is a declaration of liberation.

 

Here's the stick:

Since the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, the Democrats have once again begun to sing in unison that the Republicans are the "Party of No." The Republicans, they assert, have no positive agenda and aren't willing to work in a "bipartisan" fashion in the cause of the American people. Instead, according to the Democrat narrative, the Republicans penchant for voting "no" along party lines is purely obstructionist and tantamount to social treason.

Here's the carrot:

Since the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, Mr. Obama has decided to invite the Congressional Republicans to a televised series of meetings on how to move forward with the things he says are important to the national interest. His newly discovered sense of "bipartisanship" supposedly reflects Mr. Obama's sincere desire to cooperate with Republicans in enacting a massive new government "health care" program, which would no doubt be a prelude to a massive new government "jobs" bill, and various other forms of government intrusion in the lives of the American people.

Here's the gotcha:

According to the Wall Street Journal, "The main weapon at Mr. Obama's disposal is voter anger, ..., which he hopes can be used as a cudgel against the opposition party ..." According to Mr. Obama: "If the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business... then the responsibility to govern (belongs to them and) ...Just saying no ... (is) not leadership." In other words, if the Democrats can't have things their own way, they intend to accuse the Republicans of putting politics before country.

Here's the truth:

Fully 75% of the American people are angry at the government's current policies because they reek of big-government tyranny. Mr. Obama's invitation to bipartisanship does not signal a Clintonesque triangulation to political moderation, nor does it bespeak a genuine change of heart about governing in accordance with the centrist wishes of a majority of the American people. As Charles Krauthammer recently noted, it is a transparent attempt to launch a diversionary attack against the Republicans in order to provide political cover for the deeply unpopular leftist policies of the Democrats who are in control of the federal government. In responding to Mr. Obama's political hocus-pocus, the Republicans would do well to remember that when it is a response to tyranny, the word "no" is a declaration of liberation.

 

RECENT VIDEOS