- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,443
- Reaction score
- 733
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Excerpted from “Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'” By UPI, Published: April 9, 2010 at 8:40 PM
[SIZE="+2"]A[/SIZE]fter Gingrich urged attendees Thursday to drop the antithesis "party of no" label by focusing on their own ideas rather than reacting to Democratic ideas, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal Friday distanced themselves from the former House Speaker, saying their party shouldn't apologize for the moniker, The Hill reported. …
They could take up Newt Gingrich's advice and really stand up for something; right now they just sit down in opposition to everything.When they don't try to stop the expansion of government, they are called out for it. …
“We shouldn't just be the 'party of no,' we should be the 'party of hell no.'” — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal¹
"There is no shame in being the 'party of no' if the other side proposes something that violates our Constitution and conscience.” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin²
The ‘Party of No’ seems to fit as far as I am concerned.
If that's the case, then what are the Republicans for once they get into office?
They could take up Newt Gingrich's advice and really stand up for something; right now they just sit down in opposition to everything.
If that's the case, then what are the Republicans for once they get into office?
“We shouldn't just be the 'party of no,' we should be the 'party of hell no.'” — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal¹
"There is no shame in being the 'party of no' if the other side proposes something that violates our Constitution and conscience.” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin²
The ‘Party of No’ seems to fit as far as I am concerned.
Being a "party of No" makes sense when you can't offer valid alternative solutions to real problems and you have to rely on your ideology just to survive. I don't care if the Republicans always stay as the "party of No" because even if the Dems can't offer perfect solutions, they at least have something to offer.
Preposterous hyperpartisan BS.
You call them "the party of No" when they oppose YOUR agenda. Well big shock... mostly they don't agree with your agenda! Duh!
Saying No to gov't expansion is not a bad thing in many people's eyes, sorry.
And it fit when Bush was in office for you guys.
This really is pathetic. You really think that conservatives are going to say yes to liberal ideas and vise versa?
Stupidity doesn't even begin to describe this tactic.
Oh spare us.
The liberals were the party of "No" in the 90s when the Republicans ran Congress and when Bush was in office.
This really is by far some of the dumbest selective memory you liberals have ever tried to employ.
The frequency of filibusters – plus threats to use them – are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.
In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of Congress – the 111th – for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000
Well Chappy, see how well it goes when you go with simply partisan bitching instead of talking about actual issues? We win on the issues, let's leave the mindless mud slinging for the other guys.
They had a chance to be involved. Alot of their own ideas were in the damn bill. Its a tactic to get re-elected, nothing more. If you bog down the governing party, it makes people think they can't get anything done, and boom you get elected to be supposedly better. IT was a strategy developed by the Republicans during the Clinton administration.
Oh please. The bill has been passed, and the Dems are no better off for it. In fact they might even be worse off.
Do you honestly believe that Republicans in Congress personally liked the bill, and only voted against it because stopping it from passing would help them, which isn't even true?
Can I suspect that if they had liked it, they still would have voted no?
“We shouldn't just be the 'party of no,' we should be the 'party of hell no.'” — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal¹
"There is no shame in being the 'party of no' if the other side proposes something that violates our Constitution and conscience.” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin²
The ‘Party of No’ seems to fit as far as I am concerned.
They could take up Newt Gingrich's advice and really stand up for something; right now they just sit down in opposition to everything.
You do have a point, and that would probably be true with many of them. But NOT so that they could then portray the opposing party of not being able to get anything done; and frankly it is insulting to America as a whole to say that voters would fall for such an obvious tactic. If they liked the bill and voted against it, it would be because it was an unpopular bill and they would've personally (as opposed to collectively as a party) gotten voted out if they had voted for it.
Being a "party of No" makes sense when you can't offer valid alternative solutions to real problems and you have to rely on your ideology just to survive. I don't care if the Republicans always stay as the "party of No" because even if the Dems can't offer perfect solutions, they at least have something to offer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?