Newsletter subscribe

Arizona, Elections, Entertainment, Features, Politics, Top Stories, Videos

Video: The Party of YES

Posted: May 31, 2013 at 4:49 am   /   by

No, not the ’70s band Yes, but, rather, saying “yes” to all sorts of things that will make our lives better. Everyone’s lives. Not just the rich . . . or just the poor. Not just this group or that group. Everyone.


Republicans are sometimes criticized as being the party of No. That’s not actually the case. We say yes a lot. But too often our ads focus on winning the Washington argument, but we forget to speak to the average American and define that we ARE about helping people.

That’s why we created the ‘Yes’ campaign. We say yes on liberty, jobs and opportunity for all Americans.

Christopher Cook

Christopher Cook

Managing Editor at Western Free Press
Christopher Cook is a writer, editor, and political commentator. He is the president of Castleraine, Inc., a consulting firm providing a diverse array of services to corporate, public policy, and not-for-profit clients.

Ardently devoted to the cause of human freedom, he has worked at the confluence of politics, activism, and public policy for more than a decade. He co-wrote a ten-part series of video shorts on economics, and has film credits as a researcher on 11 political documentaries, including Citizens United's notorious film on Hillary Clinton that became the subject of a landmark Supreme Court decision. He is the founder of several activist endeavors, including (now a part of Western Free Press) and He is currently the managing editor of and principal contributor to
Christopher Cook


  1. rofomoreno says:

    Considering the incremental Leftward path that far too many in GOP leadership have taken America down these past decades (since Reagan), it is really difficult, quite disappointing and demeaning to be asked to get behind an open ended message that fails to be precise.  The word “yes” in the context of the ad, requires a signed explanation with a concrete promise written in stone, stained with the blood of a Senators good word to define exactly what the word “Yes” means to them.
    Without honesty, clarity, and a blood promise, as a conservative principled American,  it is very difficult to say “Yes. You have my trust “. The experience has given me skepticism.

    1. @rofomoreno You know, it’s funny, I said exactly the same thing (in different words) to the NRSC when they sent me this video. We need specifics at this point.

      1. rofomoreno says:

        @WesternFreePress It’s indicative of like mindedness and common sense with inherent chivalry.
        As in Rush Limbaugh listeners; Conservative enlightenment did not suddenly arrive on the day we began listening to Rush. Rush espouses the ideals and philosophies that we were already living. We acknowledge that Rush is saying what we were already thinking.  
        Lib/Prog’s may be like minded in their moral compass (or lack thereof), but the ideal they embrace absolutely lacks the characteristics of chivalry. An absence that influences far too many Repubs in leadership.
        To the point by dleeper, there are some reckless Repubs who’s words would qualify for the criteria of “Trust but verify”. In this day and age of redefining, perhaps go further by verifying before trust is even considered.

        1. @dleeper47 
          @rofomoreno  Honestly, I think a lot of Repubs lack a deep understanding of core principles. I think a lot of conservatives come into the ideology backwards—in their youth, they are more idealistic and starry-eyed, and then various realities smack some sense into them and they become conservatives. But they do so issue-by-issue. Often, a review of fundamental core principles—the reasons why we believe what we believe—is lacking or comes later. (I am NOT saying this describes all of us, or a particular conservative, but it definitely describes a significant percentage.)
          Libertarians, for their part, usually are well-versed in core principles, but they don’t have the same interest that conservatives do in being electorally relevant. If only we could combine the two!

  2. dleeper47 says:

    House Republicans have said ‘yes’ in a huge collection of positive bills sent to the Senate, where Harry Reid exercises his pocket veto by leaving them languish in a drawer somewhere.   That makes Harry and his Democrat Party the “Party of No”, not the GOP. As usual, Dems are projecting their own behaviors onto their opposition.
    I don’t believe the Senate majority leader was ever supposed to have a veto more powerful than that of the President, but de facto that’s what Reid has.   What are the prospects for fixing that?  Slim to none. 
    The Senate *can* force votes on selected bills — McConnell has done it in the past — but squishy Republicans like McCain and McConnell care more about Senate comity than rolling back the Leftist agenda.  They’ll condemn the Dems’ behavior in front of a camera from time-to-time, just for political theatre, and then they’ll go have lunch with all their “old friends across the aisle.”  All those good-ole-boy Republicans & Democrats need to go.  Our country is going bankrupt, and it happened on their watch.

    1. @dleeper47 That’s one of the reasons why I like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Neither seems particularly concerned with comity.

Video: The Party of YES