Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, April 30, 2009 3:16:45 AM
Obviously Obama and the left have settled on new talking points, and those talking points are selling the Republicans, and conservatives in general, as "the party of 'no'". This is sad for two reasons. First, because many conservatives have bought into it and argue "we have to be 'for' something", essentially agreeing with the left. Second, because we sadly have no "party of 'no'". If only one existed, I would sign up gladly.
Can we get a party of 'no' started? THAT party I would gladly give my hard earned money!
POSTSCRIPT
By the way, just to clarify for the brain dead folks who think those opposing big government are "not for anything", I am FOR one thing, and one thing only, THE INDIVIDUAL. My every "no" to the state is a "yes" for the individual. So, while you may be saying "yes" to every czar and commissar and regulator and bureaucrat and tax collector and legislator, your "yes" sounds like a "no" to every American who doesn't either work in the government or draw an income from Uncle Sam. Try to tell those outside the government that "cap and trade" is a big "yes" to them and their goals, or health care rationing, or higher taxes. I am saying "no" to all your government "solutions", because I want to say "yes" to the dreams of every individual who thinks he knows how best to live his own life and wants the regulators and nannies and busybodies and tax collectors to get out of his pocket and out of his way.
Simple enough for you? Or do you still just hear "no"?
POSTSCRIPT II
I think I said it all in my last postscript, but I can't resist adding a bit more. You see, this is the same nonsense as those who argue against libertarians for promoting a "night watchman" government, as if that were something bad. But that is precisely what the state should be. Do you hear people criticizing the police for "being negative" as "all they do is say no"? Or firemen for "just putting out fires" and not starting anything? No, they perform useful tasks which are entirely negative, fixing and preventing. Is your doctor "negative" when he tells you what not to do?
So why is it negative to say "the state is not the right tool to do this"? Because people wish it were different? I wish I could fly and live on nothing but air and go without sleep and turn invisible and age one year every century, but wishing doesn't make it so. So why should we appease those who think the state can solve all our problems? Saying that the state has a few tasks for which it is suited and that should be the limit of its power is not being "the party of no" it is being adult.
Sadly, in our present age, being adult is actually grounds for criticism.