Conservative commentator says Republicans are lying about not being the party of 'No"

Since President Obama first took office, Republicans have stood lock-step against his legislative agenda. In March 2010, Republican senators waged a record number of filibusters for a two-year term – after just 14 months. 

Given the GOP’s dearth of ideas, it’s understandable that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told radio host Bill Bennett that Republicans shouldn’t “lay out a complete agenda,” because it could become “a campaign issue.”

Despite their blanket rejection of virtually everything President Obama has proposed, many prominent conservative leaders have urged the GOP to develop a substantive agenda instead of simply accepting their “Party of No” label.

Yesterday Red State founder Erick Erickson was asked by a Think Progress reporter of  his thoughts on the “Party of No” moniker. Erickson took the GOP to task for clouding the issue. He advised them to “stop lying” about being the “Party of No” because “everyone knows you are”.

The Think Progress reporter told Mr. Erickson that the Republicans are saying, if you accuse them of being the party of no or not having ideas, they will say “oh no!”

Erickson: That’s such crap. Say you’re the “Party of No.” Of course you are. Everyone knows you are. Stop lying.

Watch his comments here: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZZy5zU9kw8&feature=player_embedded

Conservative commentator blasts the Republicans' new political strategy to repeat the George W. Bush years

By Bruce Bartlett:

Over the weekend Republicans unveiled their brilliant new political strategy: the George W. Bush years were the good old days and we should go back to them. A stupider strategy is hard to imagine. The Bush years were an unmitigated disaster. Here is a quick list of his screw-ups off the top of my head in no particular order. Readers are encouraged to add others in the comments.

Thinking that Iraqis would welcome liberation and immediately embrace Western-style democracy, and failing to manage the occupation of Iraq properly. 

How can people defend Bush on the basis that he kept us safe after 9/11 without also blaming him for 9/11? If he had the power to keep us safe after 9/11 then why didn’t he keep us safe on 9/11?

Bullying the intelligence community into giving him the justification to start a war in Iraq over non-existent WMDs.

Ramming through a massive new, unfunded Medicare drug benefit when the system was already broke.

Rushing to enact the hugely expensive Sarbanes-Oxley Act in reaction to the Enron scandal even though there was no evidence that it would have prevented it from happening.

The total failure to deal with Katrina.

Nominating the totally unqualified Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and appointing other nincompoops to high level positions solely on the basis of slavish loyalty.

Not vetoing anything until two years into his second term.

Thinking that tax rebates and tax credits stimulate growth and failing to make any of his tax cuts permanent.

Destroying the Doha round of trade negotiations by imposing steel tariffs and enacting a massive new agricultural subsidy program at its outset.  (The whole point of Doha was to reduce agricultural subsidies.)

Failing to name a new vice president in 2004 who would have been a viable Republican candidate for president in 2008.

Signing McCain-Feingold after promising to veto it during the 2000 election.

Neutering the Treasury secretary and failing to push for tougher oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thus contributing to the housing crash and economic crisis we have experienced for going on two years with no end in sight.

Bruce Bartlett is a columnist for Forbes.com. He formerly served as executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, Deputy Assistant Secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department during the George H.W. Bush Administration, and as a senior policy analyst in the White House for Ronald Reagan.