A Party of No has no future

Published November 22, 2014

by Gary Pearce, Talking About Politics, November 21, 2014.

All American politics today – the battle over immigration, the election two weeks ago and even legislative elections in North Carolina – is all about Barack Obama. 

 

Presidents always dominate the political scene. But this is a special case. Yes, it’s about race. But it’d also about something more, something deeper in America’s psyche.

 

Here’s a theory. The election of Obama in 2008 as our first African-American President was a shock to the American system, both pro and con. For blacks and for whites who cared about equal rights, even if they didn’t vote for Obama, it was an historic step forward. For many other people, well, not so much.

 

At the very same time, we went through another huge shock to the system: what felt and looked like an economic collapse. I know very smart and very affluent people who were so worried they were hoarding as much cold cash as they could. It’s as close as we’ve ever come to feeling the fear that our parents and grandparents felt in the Depression.

 

So we had a double-whammy: our first black President and an aggressive – and controversial – effort by the federal government to intervene in the economy and prevent a collapse. An effort begun, although this is totally forgotten today, by the Republican administration of President George W. Bush.

 

Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulsen, famously got down on one knee and begged then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi to save his plan to save Wall Street.

 

Somehow in our minds, that all morphed into an image of Obama as a Welfare King, taking money away from honest, hard-working people and giving it to lazy, good-for-nothings who just want a handout – the Great Redistributor. 

 

Which then led to Wall Street types like Mitt Romney, who were rescued by Paulsen’s plan, blasting Obama for raiding “makers” and rewarding “takers.”

 

Now that narrative has taken hold, and Democratic politicians and political operatives in North Carolina this year tell about voters – especially older white voters – who refuse to even talk with a candidate who is a Democrat, let alone vote for him or her.

 

As one consultant said, “White, working voters – young and old – see everybody else getting help. The government helps poor people, the government helps big banks and now Obama wants to help immigrants. Well, what about me? What about my job, my income, my retirement? What about my children graduating from college with a huge debt and not being able to get a job?”

 

The divide in the Democratic Party today is whether to try to answer their questions – or to simply drive up turnout among those people (judging from the Tillis-Hagan race, 47 percent this year) who have stuck with Obama.

 

The Republican Party has chosen its course: No to Obama, all the time, whatever he does.

 

But a party of No ultimately has no future. Especially if the other party figures out how to bridge the divide. And say Yes to everybody who’s trying to make it in America.

http://www.talkingaboutpolitics.com

November 22, 2014 at 8:51 am
Richard Bunce says:

A party of no more government will do fine if that is where the majority of voters are at. Democratic and Republican parties do not fit that description, they are for differing versions of a lot more government. A government that says yes to everybody will have a hard time paying for it... and only the Federal government can create money.

November 22, 2014 at 9:32 am
Betty McGuire says:

Thanks Gary for the best analysis yet of what is going on in politics today.

November 22, 2014 at 10:21 am
Norm Kelly says:

If you have ever doubted that Gary is a die-hard, extreme, liberal to the core, determined to support his party over anything else, it's only because you have not read any of Gary's posts. The thing with gays is that they are first and foremost gay. Their gayness precedes everything else in their lives and they make darn sure you know they are gay before you know anything else about them. Same thing with die-hard, committed, closed-minded libs like Gary. First and foremost a lib. Determined to support their party, even if it means telling lies about the opposition. The only way to support your party is actually to tell lies about your opposition, so this is your default action. You can't help it. We don't have to forgive you for doing what comes so naturally.

This is a sign of desperation. When you can't argue YOUR position on THE FACTS, then you resort to name calling and the failed 'race' card. Of course, libs ALWAYS find it difficult to argue their position on the FACTS because the facts usually DO NOT SUPPORT the lib schemes. It helps that libs do NOT recognize facts, so they can't very well use them to support their schemes.

How can you tell an extreme liberal, one who doesn't care if you accept their schemes or not, they are determined to force their schemes on you? What is it that drives libs to take their schemes to court when their schemes are rejected by voters? You can tell an extreme lib when they start out their argument, in a weak attempt to support their schemes, by telling their audience that opposition to socialism and schemes is based on RACE! What drives libs to the courts to force their schemes on voters is their understanding that their schemes are not just rejected by voters, but they know that voters are intelligent enough to KNOW that their schemes will actually do damage to the nation, to individuals, to families, to the economy. Without the courts, liberal schemes would die. Remember, it was a socialist named Gruber who expressed what most libs and all socialists believe: you, as an American voter, ARE STUPID! All of their schemes START from the point of believing in YOUR stupidity. These are NOT MY WORDS, but the words of YOUR party's leaders!

Is the rest of Gary's post worth reading? Of course not. When he starts his post with a PROVABLE LIE, the rest of the post BY DEFAULT is full of garbage. Why don't more people call out die-hard libs for their inability to be truthful, even intellectually honest. Not just with us, but with themselves.

'For blacks and for whites who cared about equal rights'. Is this WHY we elect a president? Do we want someone in office JUST BECAUSE it proves we, as a nation, believe in equal rights? Does this explain why such a highly unqualified, anti-American, partially black man was elected to office? Because we BELIEVE IN EQUAL RIGHTS!? It certainly explains why nothing useful is getting done by this WH. Incompetence breeds failure. How about all those blacks who have never bothered to register, never bothered to vote in their lives, yet they came out to vote BECAUSE the pol is/was a mostly black man? Did they vote for the right reasons OR because they believe in equal rights? How about all those WHITE PEOPLE who voted for the incompetent current occupant? Did they vote for him BECAUSE he's black, because they have 'white guilt'? Or did they vote for him because they believe in equal rights? Or did they vote for him because it was 'historic'? How about all of US who voted against him BECAUSE HE'S A SOCIALIST! How about all of us who can't even care what his skin color is, we knew by what he said that he would be bad for the nation. HE SAID that his energy policies would cause the cost of energy to skyrocket. This was not said ABOUT him by some racist! How about HIS STATEMENT about spreading the wealth? That was also said BY HIM not forced on him by some racist making up stories about the man. He TOLD Joe the Plumber that he just wanted to spread the wealth around a bit. To socialists, this is code for stealing from producers to GIVE to non-producers. To CONSERVATIVES and thinkers, this is SOCIALISM. Something that thinking Americans fight against. Stop telling me that I'M looking at skin color when it's OBVIOUSLY YOU who look at skin color first. After you determined the color of the occupant, did you even notice ANYTHING else about him? Does his desire to force the cost of energy to skyrocket have anything to do with his opposition to the XL pipeline? I know my support of XL has NOTHING to do with the occupant being a mostly black man!

'What about my job, my income, my retirement? What about my children graduating from college with a huge debt and not being able to get a job?' EXACTLY! You explain extremely well what it is that so many AMERICAN CITIZENS dislike about the occupier, and socialist schemes in general. The occupier comes out with a plan, anti-Constitutional plan, to help illegal immigrants KNOWING that it will HURT American workers. There is NO WAY that adding under-skilled workers to an already stressed job market will HELP American citizens. Why hire a legal citizen, pay them fair market value for their skills, pay taxes & benefits, when you can hire slave labor at a lower wage, avoiding taxes, avoiding benefits, by hiring an illegal. When these illegals become legal under the anti-Constitutional scheme announced by the black man who occupies the White House, will they help raise the wages of real, legal American citizens? The occupant IS supporting all kinds of groups, is increasing government subsistence payments, is working to STEAL more from producers, and is seen giving money away to all kinds of groups & liberal supporters. So, does this make me a racist because I notice that he is a socialist and I dislike, disapprove of his schemes?

The Republican party is NOT the party of NO. The Republican party only says NO to the current occupant BECAUSE HE IS A SOCIALIST and the Republicans are trying, mostly, to stand up for AMERICAN CITIZENS, the US CONSTITUTION, and what's actually RIGHT for the nation. Saying NO to a socialist is actually a good thing, and it's WHY so many Republicans were elected this time around. Nationwide! To say YES to freedom, to say YES to the rule of law, to say YES to American Citizens! To say YES to families. To say YES to those who choose to start a business. It's the libs/socialists who are saying NO to American Citizens, saying NO to working families, to say NO to those who want to escape INTO a successful, educating school for their children, to say NO to affordable energy, to say NO to freedom in health insurance choices.

Keep telling people they are stupid, please. This will drive more people AWAY from socialism than any Republican, conservative, or TEA person could ever do. Keep telling lies and more people will see through your deception and come to the RIGHT side. I know people like me will keep our copies of Gruber videos and send them to everyone we know. For years to come. Into the 2016 election cycle. People like me will prompt the Republican party and TEA people to use Gruber's words against the Socialist Party during the next election cycle. People like me will keep the video(s) of Billary asking Congress 'what difference does it make?' if the socialists are stupid enough to nominate her to run for president. You keep doing the wrong things you are doing, keep telling lies about your opposition, keep taking money away from working families to support your socialist schemes, and the Republican party will be the winner! As will the American nation.

November 22, 2014 at 10:29 am
Gray Brendle says:

I don't know where to begin with this piece, the assumptions in the premise are false. I don't think that there was any shock in the election of the first black president. I do believe that there were many who felt the election of the first black president would go far in alleviating racism and charges of racism in our country. Many voters just voted and did not care about the record and beliefs of President Obama. Boy where they shocked.

Rush Limbaugh famously said, "I hope that he fails." He was widely criticized without examination of what the statement meant. The fact remains that President Obama is the most liberal partisan president in our nations history. He is a very formidable opponent; I have a lot of respect for his win at all cost attitude. His knowledge and belief that the media would consistently carry the narrative that his administration produced has allowed him to continue his relevance. I mean he has an approval rating in the high 30s, and he comes out on Thursday and flips the bird to the 60% or so of Americans who oppose his immigration reforms.

Far from being the party of no, the Republicans are, for a change, the party of working Americans. I see a potential future where black working class voters begin to see the way the Democrat party takes them for granted. The Democrat party is a party at a cross road. They have a fractured coalition of minorities and interest groups that don't have the same interest. So I say good luck if the narrative of the liberal progressive elites is that the Republicans are the party of no. We will see.

November 24, 2014 at 3:21 pm
wafranklin says:

Wow, the first tory pundit who spoke to the fact that the GOP made Obama THE ISSUE. Been writing about that a few years. About time Pearce. Clever.