The Genesis Of The Party of No. (Congress, healthcare, radical)

[kovert]

The pre-1994 GOP (http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment/ - broken link) had quite an impressive record of publicly funded domestic infrastructure achievements, diplomacy, and governmental support of social equity policies.

Now it is being lead de facto by disc jockeys and other media pundits along with the various interest groups that sponsor them.

I think I have dug up from whence this change first began.

I found this article very enlightening on how far the GOP has strayed from its roots.

I hope everyone else does too.

[JimMe]

Originally Posted by kovert

The pre-1994 GOP (http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment/ - broken link) had quite an impressive record of publicly funded domestic infrastructure achievements, diplomacy, and governmental support of social equity policies.

Now it is being lead de facto by disc jockeys and other media pundits along with the various interest groups that sponsor them.

I think I have dug up from whence this change first began.

I found this article very enlightening on how far the GOP has strayed from its roots.

I hope everyone else does too.

I know you're enamored with the label 'Party of No'. Be aware, though, that adults often must say 'No' to children who have no thought for their own well-being and that of others. Right now the Republicans are the adults. The Dems are the children given to tantrums when they cannot get their way. I think the American public gets it.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by JimMe

I know you're enamored with the label 'Party of No'. Be aware, though, that adults often must say 'No' to children who have no thought for their own well-being and that of others. Right now the Republicans are the adults. The Dems are the children given to tantrums when they cannot get their way. I think the American public gets it.

Oh I agree, the public is definitely getting the message.

[florida.bob]

And that message will continue to resonate.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

And that message will continue to resonate.

Which one? The current Just Say No?

I'd rather see the desire to return to their (true and not Glen Beck revised) pre-1994 roots resonate and get our nation strong and united.

[kovert]

Great discussion on how true conservatism has died and been hijacked by the cult of Beck.

[kovert]

"That the first Bush is so widely reviled by the "movement" that passes for conservatism in America today, in favor of the brain-dead ressentiment of Palin or the philistine pseudo-intellectualism of Gingrich or the neo-imperial radicalism of the neoconservatives, is the smell of a decomposing corpse, not a newborn child."

Yes indeed, conservatives are a dying breed.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by kovert

The pre-1994 GOP (http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment/ - broken link) had quite an impressive record of publicly funded domestic infrastructure achievements, diplomacy, and governmental support of social equity policies.

Now it is being lead de facto by disc jockeys and other media pundits along with the various interest groups that sponsor them.

I think I have dug up from whence this change first began.

I found this article very enlightening on how far the GOP has strayed from its roots.

I hope everyone else does too.

Well, I am not a Republican, and remember very well how they were called the "party of no" by the Democrats, specifically in relation to the Republican opposition to the healthcare bill Obama is trying to pass. But the whole thing is quite ironic, since the Democrats themselves could have passed the healthcare bill without the Republicans. After all, the Democrats have had the super-majority to do so any time they wanted. In that respect, if anybody should be called "the party of no," that's the Democrats. How can they call the Republicans "the party of no" while it's they (the Democrats) who do nothing in Congress? The Democrats should be called "the party of nothing."

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Well, I am not a Republican, and remember very well how they were called the "party of no" by the Democrats, specifically in relation to the Republican opposition to the healthcare bill Obama is trying to pass. But the whole thing is quite ironic, since the Democrats themselves could have passed the healthcare bill without the Republicans. After all, the Democrats have had the super-majority to do so any time they wanted. In that respect, if anybody should be called "the party of no," that's the Democrats. How can they call the Republicans "the party of no" while it's they (the Democrats) who do nothing in Congress? The Democrats should be called "the party of nothing."

Keep in mind it wasn't until late September when the Democrats really had a super majority, and that lasted four months. Also while it was a super majority with those who caucused with Democrats, keep in mind two of them were Independents. One of them reliable, the other well not so much. It was campaigned for the Republican Presidential candidate the year before. They did however, pass a bil during the four months they had a super majority, and again with Lieberman it wasn't a true super majority.

[Sunny-Days-in-Florida]

Saying no to things are wrong is a good thing.

Saying no to something that will hurt more then help is a good thing.

Saying no to the government running a major part of our economy is a good thing.

Saying no when the majority of the party are wanting you to say no is a very good thing.

Now get to work on the most important issue, it's called jobs.