Posted on 05/31/2011 6:20:04 PM PDT by neverdem
During the summer of 2009, in the early stages of the health care debate, a frustrated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., lamented that he wasn't getting any cooperation from Republicans. "On something as important as health care, you would think people would be interested in working together," Reid grumbled. "Republicans aren't interested in working with Democrats. That's pretty clear. ... The party of no is hoping that we trip and fall."
This "Party of No" rhetoric was parroted by nearly every liberal writer. It is less common today, now that the tables have turned. The new Republican House majority has passed a serious proposal to reform the broken entitlement system and avert national insolvency. Not only has Reid refused to work with the GOP on a budget, but he said it would be "foolish" for Democrats to release one of their own. And last Wednesday, Senate Democrats gave new meaning to the label the "Party of No" when they held a series of four budget votes. Not a single Democrat voted for any budget proposal, including Obama's own plan, which was rejected by a unanimous 97-to-0 vote.
Democrats have settled on a political strategy of isolating and attacking the Ryan plan instead of offering constructive solutions that could leave them open to attack. If history is any guide, this is a winning election strategy. But it is not necessarily responsible governance. The nation faces an unprecedented debt crisis that makes the problems in the health care system pale in comparison. Both former President Clinton and President Obama at least rhetorically acknowledge that the current and projected federal deficits are unsustainable.
As tempting as it is for Republicans to blast Democrats' inaction, they would do much better to go on offense and attack the bad ideas Democrats have already embraced. Obama's still ill-defined plan for reforming Medicare is to strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member rationing panel created by Obamacare, so that it can skimp on care for more than 43 million Medicare beneficiaries. Fifty current Democratic senators already endorsed this rationing panel. If the choice is framed as a debate between change versus the status quo in Medicare, then Democrats have the advantage. If the choice is framed more honestly -- as between Republican Paul Ryan's plan on the one hand, and the rationing panel on the other -- then the playing field will be far more level.
For some reason, I was able to view Rubio's video. I normally can't view Adobe's latest iteration of Flash Player. Regardless of what you think about Medicare, Rubio's video strikes me as very effective politically, IMHO.
The liberal dictionary:
"Working with"
Verb:
"To capitulate to. Complete surrender to the liberal agenda."
See also "Reaching across the aisle" , "Maverick", "Political Moderate"
Now, with the MSM pulling in the opposite direction on the concept (which is really the same direction, but never mind), they will be able to turn the concept of "no" into Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
Nice to have the airheads in the media on your side, indn't it? Big help for communicating with the hoards of airheads who make up your voting base.
I love the way the libs and/or dems are always describing themselves to a t as they attempt to blame the opposition.
Like you and your Dem buddies voting on Obamacare, Harry? All that wonderful cooperation.
democRat Party is the party of NO.
NO morality, NO trustworthyness, NO courtesy, NO bravery, and NO ideas.
Thanks neverdem.
The Demwits met a Party of No last November.
Guess they’re slow learners.
And they’re not invited this time, either.
But they are going to crash.
Just not in the way they hope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.