Monday, February 22, 2010

Partisans Just Sayin' "No"

So Evan Bayh says he's not coming back. Partisanship and gridlock, he says. I wonder what his constituents think of his "leadership". Is running away from challenges what they were thinking when they voted for him?

(As a sidebar, a lefty blogger who no longer visits here thinks his excuse was better than Palin's when she stepped down as governor of Alaska. Don't think so. He quit because of the job. SHE quit because lefty haters were interfering with her ability to do her job with their goofy lawsuits and such. In addition, her Lt. Gov had already proven himself in her place as she campaigned with McCain, so it's not as if she left her people hanging.)

Back to Evan. More precisely, back to partisanshihp and the party of "No". First of all, I don't think partisanship is a bad thing at all. Gridlock indicates there are some real problems with what one side is trying to propose. In a time when one side lost there power after forsaking principles, holding fast to those principles is a good thing. (When the government can't operate, they can't get in our way.) I don't think the founders meant that anyone just roll over and accept what they think is a bad idea. I think they meant that these things get hashed out extensively before imposing anything on the nation.

But we know that the idea is to ram stuff through as quickly as possible before anyone can really get a handle on what is being proposed. This is definitely NOT what the founders had in mind at all. So any obstruction is a good thing. And what we've seen over the past year is that when there is obstruction, time is had to pour over just what Barry & Co were trying to do to us. (They'd say "for" us, but it's really "to" us when the impact is felt.) There's really no excuse for any administration to rush any legislation, especially considering the size and scope of things like health care reform, the banking industry, stimulus packages, etc.

So now, of course, we hear that the GOP is just the "party of 'no'". We hear that the right has no alternatives. Let's look at this.

Suppose there's an apartment building on fire. A guy name Barry O rushes forth and says "I can fix this!" and he whips out a big bucket of gasoline and is intent on throwing it on the fire. A bunch of guys scream at him "NO!!!" and Barry insists that if they don't have an alternative, they should shut up and let him throw the gasoline on the fire. Of course they have an alternative. They have water and history has shown that water is a good thing to use to put out fires. But did they really need to have an alternative in order to be justified in telling Barry "NO!!! Don't throw gas on the fire!!"? Of course not, because they know his idea is stupid and only going to make the matter worse.

This is what we are witnessing now in Washington. Barry is intent on throwing gasoline on the fire that is our messed up economy. We know his proposals are detrimental because they parallel similar moves in history. The right doesn't need an alternative in order to be justified in telling him his ideas suck.

But the right DOES have ideas. This Randle Hoven article lists a few health care proposals. This Christopher Chantrill article lists some budget cutting ideas. Check out Newt Gingrich's American and more ideas can be found there. Wisconsin's Rep. Paul Ryan(R) has a mess of ideas.

There's plenty from the right and we know that Barry doesn't even give them the time of day. They've been kept out of meetings, though now Barry says he's going to invite them to talk health care. I hope they continue to obstruct because frankly, he's not about to do anything about their ideas anyway. And we know Senate buffoon Harry Reid is intent on using reconciliation to push whatever the hell he thinks is a good idea.

No. Keep saying "NO" and obstruct as long as you can. If they want to really discuss, then discuss and articulate the superiority of conservative ideas. If we can obstruct until the mid-terms, that'll be far better than allowing more economy destroying liberal policies to go into effect.

Just say "NO!"


Feodor said...

Bayh is serving out his term and choosing not to stand for reelection, like hundreds of other senators. Palin abandoned her commitment during her term - and "for what reason" is the begged question.

Pretty simple difference.

Marshall Art said...

Talk about "simple"...that would be your mind.

The comparison is in why either is not carrying on. Bayh's not quitting the present term, that's true and I never said that he was. But he is quitting just the same. He just isn't man enough to do it now but his announcement carries the same tone as hoisting a white flag. Palin, however, felt she was made to spend too much time defending herself, time she felt should be spent doing her job. No reason to beg any questions since she gave her reasons already in greater detail than I listed. And, as I said, her Lt. Gov was ready to go, so that hardly rates as "abandonment". She just isn't fulfilling her commitment personally.

Personally, I'd rather they both do their jobs as they said they would when elected. But don't give me any shit about Bayh being more noble in his cowardice. It ain't like he's holding to some self-imposed term limit or bowing to some serious family issue. He's fleeing. Palin saw herself and her personal challenges (not brought on by herself) as obstructing her ability to govern properly.

Feodor said...

After she truly quit, Palin found enough time to appear on Fox every week, formed a PAC, wrote a book, went on a 20 city book tour, raised her speaking fees, and spoke to the Teabag conference.

"She just isn't fulfilling her commitment personally."

You're a son of Lee Atwater, aren't you?

Bubba said...

Palin "found" the time for the public appearances, etc., because those activities weren't being hampered by frivolous and costly lawsuits, if anyone is interested in facts rather than mere fodder for character assassination.

Clearly you don't qualify, Feodor.

It's Tea Party, not "teabag," you degenerate moral reprobate.

Feodor said...

You say tomato.

Anonymous said...

That gasoline story is hilarious! Did you make that up yourself?

Marshall Art said...


Why, yes I did. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I felt it was an apt analogy. Feel free to use it if you like.