In a NY Times posted from his visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the further-left-every-yearcolumnist 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.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article