The main stream media has a consistent dream. It is the dream of Republicans and Democrats working together harmoniously and putting partisan politics aside for the good of the country. Of course this dream only surfaces when Republicans are in power. When Democrats are in power, there are no calls for bi-partisanship, unless that is defined as Republicans sacrificing their values on the altar of Political Correction. But, there is no virtue in flirting with disaster.
When the American people stupidly gave Democrats a huge majority in the House and a veto proof and filibuster majority in the Senate, the result was the most hyper-partisan congress in history. Democrats showed zero interest in Republican input. Major legislation was passed without a single Republican vote, even from the traditional core of liberal RINOs. This legislation was so unbalanced that Democrats had difficulty getting it passed even though no Republican votes were necessary. Obama care literally required flagrant bribes like the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback to gain sufficient support in the Democratic Party. There was never support for this legislation from a majority of the voting public. Very few people in the main stream media noticed.
Now, Republicans have gained control of the House and have regained functional control of the Senate. The main stream media is suddenly, once again, cooing about the need for both parties to work together for the greater good. However, this is actually a good time to recall the words of Barry Goldwater:
- I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
- The Conscience of A Conservative (1960), p. 15
- I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Acceptance
- Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.
Paul Ryan gave a good speech in response to the State of the Union speech. But Michele Bachmann gave a great speech.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012507844.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
The difference was that Paul Ryan spoke with the assumption that President Obama is capable of leading us in an acceptable direction. He tried to appear reasonable and respectful in a way that would be impressive to the main stream media. That may be good politics, but the problem is that President Obama’s world view is irreconcilable with conservative values and so far he has guided us on the path to destruction. The goal of the Republican Party should be to stop Obama’s agenda, not to modify it. Our country cannot afford to continue along any path that is consistent with Obama’s naïve and irresponsible world view.
As Barry Goldwater warned us over 40 years ago, compromise with those who do not share your values is no virtue. Extremism in stopping the agenda that is destroying our country is no vice.
Sometimes you simply have to choose which path you are going to follow. Suppose there is a fork in the road. You know that if you take the left fork you will end up in a blind canyon, from which there is no exit, and you know there is a bridge out ahead. You also know that the right fork will lead you back to civilization and safety. Your leader, who does not know the area, insists on taking the left fork. Other members of the group strongly encourage you to agree to take the left fork, because they feel that the most important thing is to support the leader. They are wrong. There is no merit in blindly following a leader on the path to disaster. Obama is leading this country on a path to destruction. We obviously should try to give him guidance on which way to go. And if he starts leading us in the right direction, we should let him do so. But, if he insists on continuing to follow the path to destruction, we must not follow him, we have a duty to force a change in course.
Michele Bachman gets that. I worry that the main stream Republican leadership does not. Winning an election is 2012 would be nice, but it will be a pyrrhic victory if we have to endure two more years of wholesale destruction to our country during the interim. Pretending that Obama has somehow morphed from a naïve, arrogant, incompetent radical into a skilled leader just because he lost a mid-term election requires willing suspension of disbelief. We cannot afford to wait until 2012 to turn this ship around. We are already too close to the rocks.
TDM