Thursday, February 04, 2010

A Word About Republican Obstructionism 

It's exactly what the public wants. Don't run away from the label. Use it. No to tax increases. No to runaway spending and no to insane budget deficits. No to federal trials for terrorists. No to Mirandizing underwear bombers. No, no, no. That's what the people of Virginia, New Jersey and even Massachusetts said.

Run with it. The public is voting for the Party of No. It's called Responsibility and Discipline. Adulthood. Let's see what happens in Illinois.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Feb 04, 05:18:00 PM:

What's truly amazing to me, every day, is how dissassociated from the private economy most Democrat politicians seem to be. To them, Congress and the President has no limits on power. The Constitution aside, I don't think they understand that tax increases mean less economic activity, that larger government borrowing means less private borrowing and that more bureaucracy means less innovation.

I'v voted independently for much of my life (though I'm a Republican), and my wife is a Democrat, but I see the whole Democrat view of society as just evil. They're killing us.  

By Anonymous vikingTX, at Thu Feb 04, 05:27:00 PM:

YES, YES, YES to no, no, no.

Sometimes it is right and ethical to say no, we shouldn't do this.

Kids need boundaries, and so do Democratic (and some Republican) politicians.

We are telling the current Congress the same thing the Boston patriots told King George-NO to your taxation.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Thu Feb 04, 06:19:00 PM:

Just say "NO" to Stupidity!

Actually, not a bad platform!  

By Blogger RiverRat, at Thu Feb 04, 08:12:00 PM:

No Se Puede! No Se Puude!  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Fri Feb 05, 02:45:00 AM:

"What's truly amazing to me, every day, is how dissassociated from the private economy most Democrat politicians seem to be."

A couple of months ago Glenn Reynolds, I think, (or was it right here, TH?) published a very telling graph. It showed the percentage of Presidential appointees with private-sector backgrounds. The numbers were higher under Republicans of course but before 2009 the Democrats still had a respectable percentage, maybe 30-40%. Under Obama it is only around 10%. They are very disconnected from the real lives of Americans.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Feb 05, 06:09:00 AM:

Gary - TH has a link to his post with the graph in the post immediately before this one.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Feb 05, 07:46:00 AM:

So the party of YES! to two (unfunded) wars, three (unfunded) tax cuts, a $7 trillion (unfunded) Medicare prescription bill, a $700 Billion Bailout, and who turned a $200B plus surplus it inherited into a $1.2 Trillion deficit suddenly became Responsible, Disciplined Adults as soon as Bush left office and Obama was sworn in as President?

Gee whiz, CP, couldnya have put on your long pants a little sooner? Maybe around the time the your beloved and newly-minted party of NO! was telling us Yes, "deficits don't matter".

Funny but sad. I fear there may not be enough coffee in the world to swallow that one, CP.  

By Anonymous E Hines, at Fri Feb 05, 08:50:00 AM:

When the only ideas being proposed by the (not so) loyal majority are stupid disasters, the only possible response is, "No."

When the majority lies about the existence of alternative ideas being proposed by the loyal minority, the only possible answer to that majority is, "No."

Bad ideas are bad, no matter how many times they're repeated, no matter who proposes them, and the only possible response to them is, "No," every time such ideas are proposed.

One Anonymous seems to think that it's illegitimate for the Republicans to be taking their current tack, to recognize their recent error. We'll see. The Social Democrats, however, always have been the Party of Spendthrift, and damn the consequences. They still have a checkbook; there must still be money in the till.

Eric Hines  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Fri Feb 05, 09:35:00 AM:

First of all, brave, snarky little Anonymous, don't revise history. Recall, the military actions since 2001 were bi-partisan. Hillary f'ing Clinton was for the invasion of Iraq (and vocally), before she was against it.

Secondly, don't lie with your numbers. That $1.2 trillion deficit is arrived upon by adding up all of the Bush years combined. Obama and the Democrats blew that number out of the water in his first 6 months in office. So more than 16x more fiscally irresponsible than Bush, if you want to look at it that way.

Thirdly, either pay better attention or quit being sloppy with political facts. The bailout was also bi-partisan and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress (who, you may be surprised to learn, has had controlling majorities since 2007). Likewise, the prescription bill had wide Democratic support.

"suddenly became Responsible, Disciplined Adults as soon as Bush left office and Obama was sworn in as President?"

In comparison, yes. Take a look at the most striking contrast. Don't worry, it's just a graph. It's also out of date; thanks to Obama's visionary leadership the 2010 numbers are much higher (er, lower) than shown here.


It might also be worth noting that we have had three terrorist strikes carried out in this country since Obama took office (Little Rock shooting, Fort Hood, and the Christmas Day bomber) and his administration completely botched the apprehension and interrogation of the one bona fide al-Qaeda operative they accidentally caught.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Feb 05, 11:19:00 AM:

Anon 7:46 sings a common Democrat refrain, and it's false. Here's Keith Hennessey debunking.

These points are sideshows, anyway. Democrats didn't object to the spending- they wanted more. Democrats supported the war. So for disingenuous politicians to claim that they "inherited" a "Republican mess" is just ridiculous. For voters to give it any credence is moronic.

What CP pointed out in his post is that voters have been awakened. Regardless of who spent the money in the past, voters want new people to undo the damage. Democrats don't like that fact? Democrats want to stay in office? Well then, fine, you can: quit whining, undo the damage and restructure entitlements to diminish their size, not explode them.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Feb 06, 12:12:00 AM:

Illinois is a bad test case, living here.

Otherwise, I completely agree.  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Sat Feb 06, 04:53:00 AM:

DF82 and Anon 11:19 have pretty much taken down Anon 7:46. But there's one more: "unfunded tax cuts" bwahahaha.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Feb 06, 11:16:00 AM:

dawnfire :we have had three terrorist strikes carried out in this country since Obama took office (Little Rock shooting, Fort Hood, and the Christmas Day bomber)....

Oh please. You're claiming that Obama's responsible for an Army officer opening fire on a military base? WHen his superiors turned a blind eye to all the warning signs and promoted him when Bush was President! How ridiculous is that position? With that thinking Bush was responsible for the DC Sniper, the Anthrax attack, the shooting at the El Al counter and the attack at Chapel Hill. Bush botched two wars and let OBL escape from Tora Bora. You want more?

Give it a rest Dawnfire. There are better ways to prove your dick is bigger than the next guys. Or maybe not.  

By Blogger MainStreet, at Sat Feb 06, 12:06:00 PM:

Have always been a big proponent of "No", no to more regulations, no to more taxes, no to more spending and no to more government. Love that word "No" (except from my wife).  

By Anonymous Mark @ Israel, at Tue Feb 09, 02:31:00 PM:

It's good to say "NO" these days especially to what Obama and the Dems want. Indeed, the Republicans and the people have to say "NO" to false promises and empty talk that will deprive them of what is due to them and say "YES" to real solutions to problems at hand.  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?