The Doctrine of Constructive Obstructionism

Why is “no” such a bad word?

The way I look at it, if someone were to ring my doorbell and ask to come into my home and subsequently steal everything not bolted down, I’d say “no.” If someone were to ask to provide my three-year-old with a $300,000 mortgage loan, saddling her with debt long before she ever had the opportunity to earn a dime, I’d say “no.” If someone were to ask whether or not I’d willingly pay twice as much each month for electricity, I’d say “no.”

Yet, if you ask the Democrats currently controlling Capitol Hill, you’d think that “no” contained four letters rather than two. Just yesterday, for example, during a news conference celebrating the arrival of the Democrats’ 60th vote in the form of a washed-up, liberal comedian, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decried efforts undertaken by his Republican counterparts to oppose the Democrats’ continued pursuit of their counterproductive and contraconstitutional agenda, saying that Republicans should cease what Politico characterized as a “just-say-no approach to everything the Democratic majority wants to accomplish.”

If the last eight years have showed us anything it’s that the American people want us to work together. It’s up to them to decide if they want to continue to sit down and be the party of no or to sit down and work for the common good of the people. It’s up to them. I hope the party of no is coming to an end. We have and will continue to offer Republicans a seat at the negotiating table.

As it turns out, Reid is even funnier than his newest senator.

In fact, the Democrats have gone out of their way to avoid any and all discussion with their Republican counterparts, both in the Senate and the House, with regard to everyday discourse and key pieces of legislation alike. A few examples:

The same Democrat Party which, for eight years, decried unilateralism and promised bipartisanship has, since gaining the majority, instead embraced unilateralism and provided very little in terms of bipartisanship — what, may I ask, is the problem with “no?” At a time when the majority party is gaining momentum in its War on Success and Prosperity, “no” is the best possible answer. I want the Republicans to say “no” to killing millions of jobs and forcing an end to American exceptionalism through cap-and-trade. I want Republicans to say “no” to forcing the free market out of our healthcare system. I want Republicans to say “no” to the next so-called “stimulus” package, already a consideration because, as we’re hearing now, the first one just wasn’t big enough.

A “no” from Republicans translates into a “yes” for American business stifled by increased regulatory burdens, for the American people bracing for higher taxes and energy costs, for an America losing its grip on prosperity and growth. A “no” from Republicans is exactly what America needs.

But the GOP should not stop at “no.” Indeed, the Republican Party should embrace the Doctrine of Constructive Obstructionism — propose quality alternatives, unify behind them, and give zero ground to Democrats looking to undermine our national security and destroy our economy. Indeed, the Republican Party must ensure that their Democratic Party counterparts take complete and full ownership of every single measure, plan, proposal and passed legislation which makes our nation less safe, results in jobs sent overseas, weakens our currency, eliminates American jobs, and renders us more dependent upon foreign sources of energy and even food.

By doing so, the GOP will be in the unique position of watching the Democratic Party crumble under the weight and reality of its policies, and be ready in 2010 and beyond with concrete, cogent alternatives backed by a unified party. Add to that a candidate who can effectively articulate the tenets of conservatism and inspire confidence in an American people clamoring for competence in leadership and fiscal restraint, and we could see 1994 all over again.

The Doctrine of Constructive Obstructionism. I like “no,” but I like “no, here’s why, and here’s what we’ve proposed” a whole lot better.




    EXCELLENT Jeff! AND I agree, it is shaping up to be an awesome 2010.

  2. DISCIPLINED says:

    I say 'NO' everyday by NOT clicking on the Evony ad.

    verification word: terts
    I'll behave and not do that one

  3. Dr. L. B. Paint says:

    "be ready in 2010 and beyond with concrete, cogent alternatives backed by a unified party"

    C'mon! This is the REPUBLICAN Party! Just supposing that the Democrats suffer for their wicked ways(Personally, I think the Dems will get re-elected no matter what)and the Republicans win. Will it be any different than the LAST time they were in control? I mean, they were in charge of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, and they did nothing but bend over backwards to give the Democrats everything they wanted!!!!

    A Republican majority has already proven to be nothing more than a slightly different face on the same Democrat agenda. I see no reason to believe any supposed "next time" will be any different.

    "Concrete, cogent alternatives" is something Conservatives dream about, and are too often reluctant to admit that they are things that Republicans will never have.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I guess if the Republicans are the party of no, the Democrats are the party of owe…….

  5. BRAND NEW DAY (mj) says:

    Who said anything about Republicans? Come on Independents! let's shake this country UP.

    In harmony,
    Let's show the world that we've got liberty
    It's such a change
    For us to live so independently-

    Freedom, you see-
    Has got our hearts singing so joyfully
    Just look about,
    You owe it to yourself to check it out

    Can't you feel a brand-new day?
    Can't you feel a brand-new day?
    Can't you feel a brand-new day?

  6. Anonymous says:

    No more incumbents!


    CLEAN HOUSE 2010
    435 NEW congressmen

  8. paulrevere says:

    The party of "no", as in no organization.

    Thanks to such, we are now in a no win situation.

  9. Rix says:

    It is hard to disagree with such a trivially obvious statement as "let's be constructive". Sometimes, however, a scream is better than a thesis (Ralph Waldo Emerson).

    PS: FYI, "Evony" is one of dozens (if not hundreds) of "Lineage" copycats, a stupid but utterly harmless online strategy game. They used to call themselves "Civony" to lure Civilization fans (such as yours humbly) but were sued and forced to change the name.

  10. Gail B says:

    This just came in on Reuters:

    U.S. must be open to second economic stimulus: Hoyer

    I really don't think the American people can stand much more "stimulus;" we're gonna need the paddles to shock us back to life after the first one!

  11. Gail B says:

    And, I found this at

    Federal Judge Denies Citizen Grand Jury Presentment Filing
    Tue, Jul 7, 2009

    Oh, groan! However, CJ Lamberth did explain the "right" way to do it in his order!

  12. JasonZ says:

    Perhaps there's an easy way to eliminate the problems we've been having with Dems and Reps … "all Federal elected officials (President, Senators, Congressmen) are limited to 2 terms, whether consecutive or not, in each house of the Congress, and in the Executeve branch."

    We'll lose the incredibly bright, dedicated person who wants to give his/her life for service … but we'll gain a lot of new faces, we'll gain the experience of lots of people, and we'll get people more likely to listen to THE PEOPLE. And in the end, if someone really wants to serve, 2 terms as Congressman, plus 2 terms as Senator, plus 2 terms as President amounts to 24 years of government service … more than enough!!

  13. La Muse Poetique says:

    "Work together" apparently means "do everything we say and agree with us."


    Term Limits, a no brainer.
    Even our founders would probably spring for this about now.


    Why does the economy deserve more stimulus than I received on my honeymoon?

Speak Your Mind