Democrats: The Party of 'No', Says RNC

[paineinthearse]

This as a very positive piece for the dems. Has Brian Jones drunk so much kool-aid :beer: he has lost all touch with reality? Or is he living in a seperate reality?

====================================================

Democrats: The Party of 'No', Says RNC

2/3/2005 3:13:00 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: :puke: Brian Jones of Republican National Committee Communications, 202-863-8614

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Republican National Committee:

"President Bush's State of the Union presented a positive agenda for keeping America safe and preserving Social Security, but the Democrats have defined themselves as the party of 'no' in responding with obstruction and pessimism. President Bush realizes the challenges facing our country require bipartisan solutions, not political attacks." -- Brian Jones, Republican National Committee Communications Director.

Meet The Party Of "No"

:yourock: "(A)s The President Spoke In The House Chamber, Several Democrats Hissed And Rumbled 'No, No, No' During Some Of His Assertions About Social Security." (Charles Babington and Mike Allen, "Bush's Address Wins Over Few, If Any, Democrats," The Washington Post, 2/3/05)

:yourock: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Said President Should "Forget" About Strengthening Social Security Because "It Will Not Happen." (Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Press Conference, 2/1/05)

:yourock: -- Washington Post Article Suggested Senate Democrats Could Filibuster Social Security Plan. "Because Senate rules require 60 votes in the 100-member chamber to overcome delaying tactics, Democrats appear positioned to block Bush's partial privatization efforts unless he makes concessions that attract moderate Democrats from states that the president carried last fall." (Charles Babington and Mike Allen, "Democrats Claim Votes To Halt Social Security Plan," The Washington Post, 2/2/05)

:yourock: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Said Democrats "Are United" Against President's Social Security Plan. (David Espo, "Democrats: Social Security A Distraction," The Associated Press, 2/1/05)

:yourock: Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "We've Got To Fight On This Issue, And We've Got To Wage An Aggressive Fight." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "For Democrats, Social Security Becomes A Defining Test," The New York Times, 1/30/05)

:yourock: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): "We Will Not Allow The President To Play Retirement Roulette And Turn Social Security Into Social Insecurity." (Richard Simon and Maura Reynolds, "Democrats Give A 'No' To Privatization," Los Angeles Times, 2/3/05)

:yourock: "Rep. John D. Dingell Of Michigan Said That Bush's Social Security Proposal Reminded Him Of 'That New Coke From The 1980s - - The Name On The Can Was The Same, But Nobody Could Stomach What Was Inside.'" (Richard Simon and Maura Reynolds, "Democrats Give A 'No' To Privatization," Los Angeles Times, 2/3/05)

---

:puke: Paid for by the Republican National Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

[MuseRider]

1. Do they seriously expect

us to be the party of yes? I mean, where are their minds? WTF are they smoking?

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. Whatever it is, I want some and I don't even smoke.

Republicans are both projectionists and hypocrits. Works for them I guess. :shrug:

[flaminbats]

2. Just say no..

Wasn't that a Reagan expression?

[iamjoy]

4. Yes, We Are The Party Of No!

No to torture!

No to illegal pre-emptive wars on false intelligence!

No to government interfering in our healthcare decisions!

No to tax cuts for millionaires while thousands of working poor lose health coverage!

No to tax cuts for corporations moving American jobs overseas!

No to corporations raping the environment!

No to raiding social security to appease Wall Street brokers!

No to dismantling the precious Constitution!

I could go on and on.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

5. Oh my gosh!

This seals the deal -- the Democrats are HORRIBLE MEANIES!

[Zebulon]

6. I suppose the thought never crossed his mind

that sometimes "no" is the correct answer?

[paineinthearse]

8. Democrat Obstructionists Take Cheap Shots as President Bush Unites Nation

Warning, may cause severe nausea

==================================

http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5117

Democrat Obstructionists Take Cheap Shots as President Bush Unites Nation

This morning's newspapers and news shows focus on President Bush's Social Security plan, which we look forward to him laying out in tonight's State of the Union. The Washington Post reports on the President's 'blueprint' for what our nation will accomplish in the next four years, which will "complement the lofty ideals Bush articulated in his Jan. 20 inaugural address." We expect to hear about the President's comprehensive plan for preserving Social Security for America's future generations, his commitment to spreading freedom across the globe, and initiatives for forging an 'ownership society' at home, as reported by the Dallas Morning News.

President Bush will follow up the State of the Union by visiting those most concerned about the future of Social Security – the American people. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports on the President's post-SOTU trip to North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Florida to highlight his plans to preserve Social Security for our children and grandchildren.

Democrat obstructionists be warned. Republicans are not prepared to let well-qualified, widely supported Cabinet and judicial nominees be struck down for partisan, political purposes. Democrat Senator Harry Reid yesterday said that at least 25 or 30 Democrats would vote against Judge Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. The Wall Street Journal says the decision "underscored Mr. Reid's transactional style as the new Democratic leader and his determination to pick fights carefully even on emotional issues for his party. 'I think he's not going to blunt his sword on a battle that can't be won,' said his second-in-command, Sen. Richard Durbin." There's no reason to engage in battle. Gonzales enjoys broad support in the Latino community, even from organizations normally supportive of Democratic policy positions.

RNC Deputy Communications Director Danny Diaz said, "Obstructing his nomination would show that Democrats still don't understand the ramifications of an election where President Bush increased his share of the Hispanic vote by 9 percent over 2000."

But Reid has no interest in diplomacy and teamwork. The Washington Post reports on Reid's warning to the President yesterday about another confrontation over judicial nominations. In "some of his strongest rhetoric to date," Reid said, "If they bring back the same judges, we're going to do the same thing." And while Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist "has threatened to invoke a rules change in the Senate that would prohibit a filibuster of judicial nominees," Reid "all but dared Frist to try."

The Democratic rhetoric may be tough talk, but we can keep moving forward with tough action. And we will. Stay tuned for President Bush's State of the Union tonight and for calls to action to support the President's and our Party's agenda.

:nopity:

[Zebulon]

10. Re: Reid "all but dared Frist to try."

GOOD!!!

Why the hell do they think that we should roll over and let them do whatever they want, without opposition?

[KC21304]

7. The Republicons are the party of no morals,

no compassion, no sense.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. Exactly

Iraq and Gonzalez are perfect examples. Don't forget their bigotry.

[jazzjunkysue]

11. No WMD's, No Al Qaida-Iraq links, No Bin Laden in jail, No Nuke controls

No inspection of ports, no control over Iraq, No exit strategy, no credibility.

[jdots]

12. Brian Jones.... didn't he drown along time ago ?

well this turd maggot should drown in his own puke .....
oh don't get me started !

[Telly Savalas]

13. Can someone explain to me...

how the party giving 35 "nay" votes against an A.G. nominee can be construed as being "obstructionist"? What exactly were they obstructing? How would the outcome have been any different if they all voted "yea"? If they are supposed to vote identically to the GOP on everything what's the point of having more than one party?

RNC press releases look more like avant-garde poetry than coherent commentary on political events.