Sunny
67°
Sunny
Hi 75° | Lo 51°

My Turn: Democrats are the party of we, Republicans the party of me

Re “Here’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats” (U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, Sunday Monitor Forum, Feb. 16):

Whenever my nieces ask about my job or why I am a Democrat, I explain Democrats are the party of “we,” while Republicans are the party of “me.” There are few individuals who epitomize this stark contrast of values more than the Republican State Committee’s guest this week, Congressman Darrell Issa.

Issa is a member of the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, where instead of working to give more Americans the opportunity to succeed, Republicans have spent the past three years voting nearly 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act – while pushing no alternative of their own.

These Tea Partiers have opposed equal pay for women and protections for LGBT Americans against workplace discrimination. They have threatened a disastrous default by compromising the full faith and credit of the United States, and they followed their party’s de facto leader, Sen. Ted Cruz, by voting – several times – to shut down the federal government.

If these themes sound familiar it is because our own New Hampshire Republican candidates, Frank Guinta, Marilinda Garcia, Dan Innis and Gary Lambert, have voiced many of the same out-of-touch positions themselves.

When I served in State House’s Democratic minority in the 1990s I worked with Republicans to raise the minimum wage, to fight for equal pay. We had bipartisan support for concrete initiatives to strengthen the middle class. Sadly these are values the New Hampshire GOP and its candidates no longer believe in.

Beyond real issues, Issa’s antics, like the shameful stunts from many of our local Tea Partiers over the past few years, have divided our country and hurt people’s faith in their government. As chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Issa has launched ideological witch hunt after ideological witch hunt, from Benghazi to the IRS, that focus more on attracting headlines than getting to the truth. When independent reports on both provided fact-based assessments of what actually happened, they were ignored – as Issa, Sen. Kelly Ayotte and others instead chose to double down on the paranoia and fear-mongering that keeps them on Sunday political talk shows and in Fox News headlines.

Ignore the hollow platitudes about accountability and government intrusion that will inevitably come from Issa this week. Today’s Republican Party has become the party dead set on pretending ethical scandals within their own ranks don’t exist while simultaneously trying to shrink government just small enough to fit it in our bedrooms.

What possible rationale could the chairman of the Oversight Committee offer for campaigning with disgraced former congressman Frank Guinta, who is still under investigation by the FEC?

So, Issa is welcome in New Hampshire anytime – but let’s be clear: Granite Staters know the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats – including our hardworking public servants here in New Hampshire – fight every day to expand opportunity for Granite Staters and folks across the country. From supporting a higher minimum wage and equal pay for women to expanding Medicaid coverage for our state’s most vulnerable, we are focused on the kitchen table issues that affect everyday Americans. Democrats are not pushing divisive social issues or ideological games that threaten responsible governance and the reputation of our country. They’re building consensus, representing their constituents, and helping solve our nation’s problems.

That’s the core of what we do as Democrats. We aim to make government more responsible to the people – focusing on their needs and hopes, not their fears and prejudices.

(Ray Buckley is chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and a former state representative.)

Neither party is the party of "we." They're both the party of "us v them."

This political ad is brought to you by Ray Buckley, Chairman of the NH Democrat party. The content of this ad in no way reflects the views of the Concord Monitor (shhhh) and is the sole, lame, ongoing diatribe of both Buckley and Democraps everywhere.

Facts prove Ray Buckley wrong. HEADLINES: On Tuesday, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) said his committee’s continuing investigation has found that the IRS also singled out established conservative tax-exempt groups for audits. We now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s,” Mr. Camp said in a statement. “At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.”

BALONEY!

prove it...... or apologize

You prove it, you made the charge. Right wing Republicans representatives make all kinds of ridiculous statements, doesn't make it so. Maybe your "foundation" can help you.

The Dems are the party of "We Know Best" Any discussion from anybody that disagrees with them is not accepted. There is never one side to any issue, and common sense dictates that all sides need to be examined to result in the best solution. The denial about all these issues is just that denial. We have come to accept poor planning, politics dictating the debate, and nothing getting done right. Both sides need to get their acts together and do what they were voted in to do. Come up with the best solutions and efficient ways to implement them If we cannot manage this at State level, why would anybody believe that would could manage it at Federal level? The only difference between State and Federal is that in Federal we have more folks screwing up the process.

I think Camp's claim in sail's post is accurate, but there's more to the story. A high percentage--upwards of 85% of the groups filing for 501(c)(4) status were "right-leaning"--reflecting the rise of such groups between 2008 and 2010. The appeal of this status is that it allows donors to be anonymous, while still engaging in political activities, so long as those activities amount to less than half of its "social welfare" activities. The IRS may have been a bit ham-handed, but I think it was doing its best in a difficult and highly partisan time to prevent abuse of its rules regarding the activities of a flood of groups applying for this status--the overwhelming majority of which were right-leaning.

Welcome back BPR

Yes, the party of WE...as in WE are going to take what you earn and give it to those that don't/can't/won't earn so WE can buy their votes because we can't win otherwise.

Waste of time to go after anything to do with the ACA. It will go down on it's own with time. Just let it play out Reps. Every aspect of it will be a problem. Next up the employee mandate. And folks will be finding out what taxes are in it, and the fact that more and more medical providers will be opting out of covering folks who are on it. The reimbursement amounts will make sure that health care providers will drop out of covering Medicaid patients in droves. You might have insurance on the ACA, but good luck finding health care. The narrow networks will compact folks in few places to get care. And insurance companies will have to be bailed out also. Lots more problems on the horizon sadly.

Sounds like it's time for Single Payer. As long as we leave heath insurance up to the free market, this is what we will get.

On the very night Obama was inaugurated. McConnell and the rest of the Republicans decided he would be a one term President and they would do nothing to help him pass anything. That obstructionist plan didn't work so well as he was reelected. And as GWTW and others keep repeating, ACA was passed with out any Republicans votes (as McConnell planned) and now they complain about the ACA being passed with out Republican votes. Go figure.

Right on, Ray. The hyperbolic, fact-free responses here prove your point, brilliantly.

"...trying to shrink government just small enough to fit it in our bedrooms." [snort] Good one Mr. Buckley.

Talk about platitudes ... 'Democrats are the party of “we,” while Republicans are the party of “me.” ' ... spare us! And stop with the straw men ... FOX News, Ted Cruz, Tea Party, etc. And thank goodness Issa is holding this lawless administration accountable for its egregious behavior. The reason Issa has subpoena power is because the GOP has a big majority in the "People's House" .. a direct result of Obama jamming the "ACA" down the people's throats. The PEOPLE are going to speak loudly and clearly this November, Ray ... Listen to them!

With the dismal approval ratings given to your GOP controlled Congress, I can only hope that the people will speak lousy and clearly this November, but I think likely not in the way you envision.

taking bets?

Ok, explain to me how changes to the ACA is in strict violation of the Constitution? Those laws you do not want changed (whatever they are) are being changed by our elected Representatives. "WE THE PEOPLE" elected those people, maybe not you, but I am sure in the past or in the future you will elect Representatives who will change laws. After all only the Ten Commandments are written in stone and we know how well they are obeyed.

it would be great if our representatives were...but they are not. The text of the law (its not a suggestion) reads "The employer mandate provisions 'shall apply' after December 31, 2013."...isnt it bad enough that this law was passed in the dead of night with a parliamentary procedure ..now Obama just changes or ignores it..at will?? I dont want ANY president to have that much power..or any congress to stand for it.

A couple of years ago, GOP mouths were all upset about the mandate you speak of, calls of putting it off or removing it from the ACA were commonplace. Now that you've been given what you asked for, you pretend to be outraged..."at will??" Once again the hypocrisy is loud and clear, you got what you asked for but still there is a scandal. There is NO making you happy, is there?

The law was passed at 11:19PM on November 7, 2009 by a 220-215 vote. In the dead of night isn't the truth, neither is the implication that only by some sort of technicality or suspicious shenanigans did this law pass. You can try and rewrite history if you'd like to, but people in general, most if us anyway, aren't really that dumb.

Ray, You're no better then the Tea Partiers you despise. Nothing but talking points. You do know that they Repubs offered multiple versions of health care modifications to Obama, but were not ever allowed into their meetings. This president has done more to divide this country than anyone before him. You're the party of "we?" Give me a break.

"voting nearly 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act"...in strict accordance with the Constitution..The Obama regime made over 20 changes to the law ...in strict violation of the Constitution. Mr Buckley, the House of Representatives IS the people...WE the People...every time you and your far left friends change laws you make the government LESS responsible to the people...

The right is just blowing smoke...again, this time on tweaks to implementation of the ACA. It's one more shameless attack in an unrelenting effort by the party of NO to assault Obama on any and everything: "On the contrary, Treasury's Mazur wrote to Chair Upton, such temporary postponements of tax reporting and payment requirements are routine, citing numerous examples of such postponements by Republican and Democratic administrations when statutory deadlines proved unworkable. In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of 'the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities.' Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an 'agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.' The Obama Administration has not and is not about to abdicate its responsibility to implement the statute on whose success his historical legacy will most centrally depend. Nor is the one-year delay of the employer mandate an affront to the Constitution, as Professor Michael McConnell and Congressional Republicans insist. The relevant text requires that the President 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' Scholars on both left and right concur that this broadly-worded phrasing indicates that the President is to exercise judgment, and handle his enforcement duties with fidelity to all laws, including, indeed, the Constitution." http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

Ahh the chief criticaster is once again involved in daily partisan pettyfoggery. It is petty to keep such a disaster in place to protect his historical legacy. He does not have a right to usurp the Congress and change the law. Laws are changed through Congress, not at the whim of a President. The precedent he sets will certainly be used in ways you will not appreciate when the other party is in power.

another propaganda piece from the minister of Disinformation

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.