Published by Communities At Washington Times, 11-3-10
Now that he’s lost the House of Representatives and a significant chunk of the Senate, watch for President Obama to talk at length (not only today but throughout the next two years) about how “the American people want Democrats and Republicans to work together.”
This non-stop series of repetitive acting challenges will have more performances than Phantom of the Opera. The cast will include Obama’s two favorite sayings:
1) “The American people want bi-partisanship.”
2) “Republicans are the ‘Party of No.”
Even last week, seeing the handwriting on the wall, President Obama was calling upon Republicans and Democrats to come together for the good of the American people.
Yes, those are always the Democratic talking points: When they are in the minority, it means the people want bi-partisanship. When they win the majority, (2006 and 2008) it means the people have spoken, so suck it up Republicans and face the fact that you lost the election.
In point of fact, one cannot recall a president more partisan than Obama. He refused ALL Republican challenges to his policies the past two years. His title “Party of No” was dreamed up only because Republicans didn’t like HIS ideas. Should they have called him the “President of No” for not liking theirs? This same man claims that Republicans cannot have the keys to the car because they do not know how to drive. Oh yes, and if they do get into the vehicle, they need to “sit in the back.” Sweet. Yeah, that sure looked like an olive branch, didn’t it? Then, when he spoke before Latinos, he went out of his way to call the Republicans their enemy. This from the man who campaigned by saying, “We are not white America or black America or brown America, just America.”
None of this will matter if Obama presumes upon the short memories of our fellow citizens. After all, he now has a perfect scapegoat in 2012. “I tried to be bi-partisan, but those mean, nasty Republicans just wouldn’t reach across the isle like I was willing to do.” This would be funny if not for the fact many will eat it up with a spoon rather than a shovel and let’s face reality: It’s the kind of stuff that needs to be shoveled.
Still, he’s hoping the high majority of the country is just that stupid. To nurture this hope, he reminds himself that he was voted into office. (No, I do not believe every person who voted for the man is stupid. Some were merely misled, or caught up in the moment. Besides, many who supported Obama are waking up, but when he continues with such drivel, it speaks low for his opinion of his own followers, showing contempt for the very people who put him in office.)
Not long ago, in front of a hysterically laughing crowd, at the V and M Star in Youngstown, Ohio, President Obama insisted Republicans would say no even if he told them the sky was blue. (Oh, my sides.)
If the crowd cheered before, when Republicans were powerless anyway, you can bet your life savings that he will revive the marvelous joke now that the GOP has teeth again. Actually, our government already bet your life’s savings, so don’t worry about taking the bet.
Instead, we might be well served to revisit the subject of Yes and No once again. We may as well start at the children’s level since our president is talking to us like children.
Is no always a bad word?
“No you cannot have any more candy,” a mother tells her young ones.
“No you cannot play on the street,” she also says.
No commentary necessary, right? Good. Let’s move upward in ages a bit. When a woman says no to a man’s advances, should the guy respond by calling her “the Party of No”? “No means no,” is actually a popular saying, unless we are talking about Republicans saying no to Democrats. That, of course, is a foul.
How about some historical perspective? Is it good that the colonists said no to English taxation without representation? Was it good that we fought a Civil War saying no to slavery? Should we continue to say no to racism? Do we say no to murder?
OK, we agree then. Words such as yes or no are neutral. They take on meaning only when we decide what we are saying yes or no to. Increasingly larger amounts of people are happy to see Republicans saying no to policies that endanger our national security, paralyze the private sector, and sue states like Arizona for simply enforcing federal law. Oh, one last thing: Obama was a Senator when George Bush was president. Just thought I’d mention that in case anybody had forgotten. How many of Bush’s policies did Senator Obama himself say no to? I guess back in those days, Democrats were the “party of no.”
Still, yes does sound like a more positive word. So be it. Say yes to Republicans turning back horrific policies. On the other hand, if you like Democrats, then you may choose to say no to Republicans in 2012. If you make that choice, please deal with it when others also reserve the right to say no.
This is Bob Siegel, saying yes to making the obvious, obvious.
Share this on
