In a column
posted from his visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, the further-left-every-year NY Times
columnist Tom Friedman offers us this gem from the echo
chamber:
It was hard to read President Obama’s eloquent State of the
Union address and not feel torn between his vision for the
coming years and the awareness that the forces of inertia and
special interests blocking him — not to mention the whole
Republican Party — make the chances of his implementing that
vision highly unlikely. That is the definition of “stuck.” And
right now we are stuck.
The sad and frustrating thing is, we are so close to
being unstuck. If there were just six or eight Republican
senators — a few more Judd Greggs and Lindsey Grahams — ready
to meet Obama somewhere in the middle on deficit reduction,
energy, health care and banking reform, I believe that in the
wake of the Massachusetts wake-up call the president would
indeed meet them in that middle ground to forge not just
incremental compromises, but substantial ones on these key
issues. But so far, the Republicans are having a good year
politically by just being the Party of No.
Are you serious, Tom? You must be standing too near George
Soros and other billionaire haters of capitalism and the United
States.
Feeling torn between “Obama’s vision” and forces blocking
him? That’s like feeling torn between bacterial meningitis and
antibiotics. For the sake of our children, Tom, please hope that
Obama stays stuck.
Beyond the insult to Judd Gregg of comparing him to Lindsey
Graham, just what about Barack Obama’s words, actions, or history
makes Friedman think that Obama wants to “meet somewhere in the
middle” on any issue or that “meeting in the middle” is a recipe
for success? Was it the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka
McCain-Feingold, the most direct (and finally mostly overturned)
assault on the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts?
Was it the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which
collapsed under overwhelming opposition from Americans across the
political spectrum? Was it the Democrats’ refusal to let
Republicans participate in health care “reform” debates? Or was
it Nancy Pelosi’s sending all Republican Congressmen who went to
the Copenhagen Climate Summit back to the hotel on a bus so they
could not participate in the Congressional press conference?
Really, Tom, just what in our recent history makes you think that
bipartisanship for its own sake is a good idea? And what in the
history of this administration and this Congress makes you think
it’s even possible?
No, a call for bipartisanship, wondering why the GOP is
simply being the “Party of No” is a fig leaf; it is a weak,
desperate attempt by Democrats to explain why they, with
commanding majorities in both houses of Congress and a president
who had (but squandered) more goodwill more quickly than any
president during my lifetime. I don’t want the Republicans to
stop being the “Party of No” any more than I want antibiotics to
“give peace a chance” when they enter the bloodstream and
encounter an invader.
Some people theorized that Scott Brown’s election might
cause Obama to triangulate like Bill Clinton. My view remains
that Obama is a committed ideologue and not interested in
triangulation. His State of the Union address and his
jaw-dropping next-generation-robbing budget have proven me right.
Friedman well knows that bipartisanship has come to mean
conservatives moving to support liberal big-government plans and
policies. Period.
Yes, Tom, there are “special interests” working to block
President Obama from implementing his agenda. They are the most
special interests of all: the fundamental character of Americans
to be self-reliant, to fight for our liberty, and to do whatever
we can — consistently for almost 500 years — to be Americans,
not Europeans despite the wishes of people like Barack Obama and
Thomas Friedman.
There is no “compromise” to be had between a supporter of
Card Check and people who believe in the sanctity of a secret
ballot. There is no “compromise” to be had between ObamaCare and
the sanctity of a patient/doctor relationship. There is no
“compromise” to be had between savaging banks, energy companies,
and any other temporarily unpopular industry and the importance
of a free market system. There is no “compromise” to be had
between disease and health, between the plague of Progressivism
and the lifeblood of our nation that is our personal and economic
liberty.
I have never in my life been more thankful for the Party of
No and it says good things about the wakening American electorate
— perhaps the first good things in more than a decade — that
the Republicans are indeed having a good year politically by
being that Party.
