Print This Post Print This Post

Mar

9

[video] The Party of No


YouTube Preview Image

Hattip Progress Ohio.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:58 pm March 9th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Government, Politics, Republicans, Whitehouse09, conservatives, leadership 

Comments

6 Responses to “[video] The Party of No”

  1. 1 Daniel Jack Williamson on March 9th, 2009 2:56 pm

    It took a long time for the Republican Party to become the party of “no.” The rank-and-file Republicans have been saying “no” for years, but the prominent Republican politicians were sweet-talked into “yes,” and hence the trouble we’re in. I’m not sure we, at the grassroots level, have got the GOP’s prominent politicians well-trained just yet. We keep hoping they continue to say “no,” but past experience is too recent, so we’re not holding our breath.

    For the time being, I’m glad to be in the party of “no.”

  2. 2 Jill Miller Zimon on March 9th, 2009 3:20 pm

    Daniel – I”m not going to argue with how you feel but I do want to comment on one part of what you wrote:

    Why do you say that they were “sweet-talked into ‘yes’”? I mean, I think I know – what you mean – I think you mean that you believe that they were told things or otherwise persuaded beyond their capacity to resist into saying yes. (but definitely correct me – I don’t mean to put words in your mouth).

    If it is something along those lines, I have to tell you – this kind of explanation always bugs the heck out of me (like I wrote yesterday re: the PD editorial that said that Mary Taylor “got” the headlines she wanted – well, that’s because someone gave them to her).

    When I read that you think that they were “sweet-talked” I infer:

    1. Someone did the sweet-talking – who was that? Bush? Cheney? Boehner?

    2. They were unable to resist persuasion of some type. So why would they all of a sudden have some kind of equally irresistible resolve to say no, all of a sudden?

    These inferences lead me to the conclusion that it’s partisan politics that dictates when they say yes and when they say no – and it has nothing to do with putting country first, unless and until they get to do it their way and even if more than half the country that voted doesn’t want to try it their way.

    IMO, this is a huge rejection of democracy by the Republicans who are saying no, and if anything endangers the integrity of our foundation, it is that.

  3. 3 Ben K on March 9th, 2009 5:28 pm

    The whole commercial relies on the premise that the bill will actually create 3.5 million jobs. Until the verdict is out on that then maybe being “no” isnt so bad.

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on March 10th, 2009 6:19 am

    Ben I won’t outright disagree with that, but, on the other hand, how many of the years that Bush was in office did he keep talking about job creation, and at the end of the two terms, what was really accomplished? So, I write a lot about fearmongering, and I agree that it’s premature to judge the success OR failure of anything Obama has done so far, but the frequency and strident nature of the Republican legislators “no”s is really pretty overwhelming – doesn’t seem to me like they’re interested in waiting eight years to judge Obama’s ideas, as you kind of suggest maybe we should.

  5. 5 Paul on March 10th, 2009 8:39 am

    I think that when the history is written, it will be said that Carter let the car run out of gas and then whined about it for four years. Reagan came along and not only filled the tank, but gave us a credit card for unlimited gas in the future. Our mistake is that we thought it was pre-paid.

    Clinton was the President that shoved the gas pedal to the floor without any clue how keep things under control. The last thing he did was punch the cruise control button and turn the car over to Bush. GW was too dense to turn off the cruise control, and rode the thing all the way to the inevitable crash.

    Obama now has to do the repair.

    If the economy were really a car, we would probably hope that GW had totaled the thing so we could collect our insurance money and start over. But such is not the case, and BHO must start with a mangled mess and try to restore it to workability.

    If the old economy was a 1972 Cadillac with giant tail fins, an energy guzzling engine, and a zillion stupid accessories – then we don’t want Obama to just rebuild that – which is unfortunately what the Congress is trying to do with all those earmarks.

    We’d like for him to pluck the best features out of that old Caddy, then melt the rest down and make a small fleet of Chevy Volts out of it.

    The question is whether the he still owes so much on the Caddy that those to whom he is indebted will call the shots – not him. I fear will end up with an the same old Caddy with a new paint job.

  6. 6 Daniel Jack Williamson on March 10th, 2009 8:08 pm

    By “sweet-talked,” I basically mean “bribed.” In essence, I mean that some Republican politicians valued re-election more than they valued principles, so campaign contributions held more sway over their votes than did the grassroots voices back home.

Leave a Reply




"));