The Republican Party has, up until recently, tried to distance itself from the "Party of No" label which Democrats are fond of using against them. "It's all the Democrats' fault that we can't bask in the sunshine of bipartisanship," they used to say. But since Barack Obama's signature on health care reform legislation, the Republicans seem to actually be embracing the "Party of No" concept.
This is going to make the midterm elections much easier for Democrats, if they can manage to point it out every time it happens from now until November. That's a big "if," though, since Democrats have muffed such chances in the past. A few years ago, Republicans voted en masse against honoring Mother's Day, for instance (you just can't make this stuff up), but not much political hay was made of this golden opportunity by Democrats at the time. More recently, last December Republicans tried to make the Pentagon's checks start bouncing -- in the middle of two wars -- and Democrats barely mentioned it. So it's not a "given" that Democrats can capitalize on such Republican mistakes.
Of course, this week is going to be a week of parliamentary mischief over in the Senate, as Republicans try every trick in the book to gum up the gears of government in a desperate attempt to kill a bill which fixes several things they've loudly complained against (like the "Cornhusker Kickback"). But that's actually normal and expected behavior, believe it or not. All the shenanigans Republicans are engaging in this week (such as refusing to work in committees for more than two hours a day) are part and parcel of the grand dance of politics in Washington, intended as a poke in the eye to Democrats, to show how massively upset Republicans are. Both parties do this sort of thing all the time, during debate on contentious subjects. It's a way of getting yourself in the news, and drawing attention to your anger. Republicans are usually better at these stunts, but Democrats are fully capable of similar behavior as well, at times.
But everyone in the Senate -- even prominent Republicans -- expects the reconciliation bill to pass by the end of the week. The dirty secret that most Americans aren't aware of is that the only way to get most anything done in the Senate is to hold their vacation time hostage. Harry Reid will just keep the Senate in session until the Senate votes. If Republicans want to delay that into the upcoming two-week vacation (which is scheduled to start Saturday), so be it. But they likely won't delay it much, or at least they will back down after a few days stuck in Washington (past the point when their vacation is supposed to have begun). This is why the original Senate bill passed on Christmas Eve, remember. This also works in the House -- they started their vacation this Monday, after delaying it two days to vote Sunday night.
But while parliamentary mischief is par for the course during the debates on such votes, it is not normal beyond the vote itself. Once the issue has been resolved, Congress usually moves forward on other subjects. Bad feelings may remain, but not to the point of sheer obstructionism.
Senator John McCain, however, is adamant that -- because health reform passed -- Senate Republicans are just going to shut down all business for the remainder of this year. In a recent radio interview, McCain said: "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They [Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."
He was soon echoed by Senator Lindsey Graham, in a flip-flop so blindingly swift it caused whiplash among pundits across the land. On the same day Graham penned an op-ed article in the Washington Post which trumpeted a bipartisan draft of a bill (the bill, and the op-ed, were co-authored by Senator Chuck Schumer) on comprehensive immigration reform -- the same afternoon, Graham was quoted saying: "The first casualty of the Democratic health care bill will be immigration reform. If the health care bill goes through this weekend, that will, in my view, pretty much kill any chance of immigration reform passing the Senate this year." Earlier in the day, Graham and Schumer wrote in their op-ed: "We urge the public and our colleagues to join our bipartisan efforts in enacting these reforms."
McCain and Graham are both being crystal clear: "We are taking our ball and our bat, and we are going home. No issue which confronts the country is going to be deemed important enough for us to end our tantrum over health reform's passage." In other words, "Call us the 'Party of No' from now on!"
Senator Judd Gregg also got in on the kicking-and-screaming-on-the-floor action, although he was a bit more honest in his assessment of the future. "In my opinion, the institution of the Congress has been fundamentally harmed," Gregg said in a CNBC interview, but did later admit: "There will be other events in this nation which capture the attention of the American people. So it's very possible that people will not be as focused on this by next November."
Senator Jon Kyl was also a bit more realistic, in an interview with Jim Lehrer from PBS' NewsHour. When asked by Lehrer whether he would support McCain in not cooperating with Democrats any more on any other legislation, Kyl responded:
Well, on the major things, like -- that the president has talked about doing, like immigration reform, for example, something Senator McCain and I have worked on before, it's going to be very, very hard to get bipartisan consensus on those things that we used to have, to some extent. And, so, I think, in that sense, John McCain is right.
Now, the truth -- and I know John would agree with this, too -- every day, particularly on regional matters and other things, where there is less partisan politics, there will be cooperation between House and Senate Republicans and Democrats, as there always is.
But there's no question that the procedure that was used here and ramming this through, when the American people still oppose this about 60-40, according to a poll just two days ago from CNN, I think that it will be much more difficult to get bipartisan action on big legislation.
Once again, even while hedging a bit on McCain's comments, Kyl is unquestionably saying that Republicans are so angry about health reform passing that they are just not going to cooperate on anything major.
This isn't the best thing to campaign on, but Republicans have not figured this out yet. They may, though. Tempers are running high right now, but once Republicans come back after their vacation, they may realize that openly admitting that they are the Party of No isn't going to win them many votes among independent voters. Kyl, by the way, is also sending a very strong signal to Latino voters that their concerns are going to be used as a political pawn by the Republican Party (not exactly the way to gain Latino voters, but that's a whole other subject).
This year, voters will be faced with two basic choices. Elect more Republicans to Congress, and guarantee that Washington will be completely gridlocked for two years; or elect Democrats who want to get some things accomplished, and are looking forward to the future.
Democrats are -- for once -- actually doing a good job of communicating this to the public. Here is Harry Reid's spokesman, on the McCain comments:
For someone who campaigned on 'Country First' and claims to take great pride in bipartisanship, it's absolutely bizarre for Senator McCain to tell the American people he is going to take his ball and go home until the next election. He must be living in some parallel universe because the fact is, with very few exceptions, we've gotten very little cooperation from Senate Republicans in recent years.
At a time when our economy is suffering and we're fighting two wars, the American people need Senator McCain and his fellow Republicans to start working with us to confront the challenges facing our country -- not reiterating their constant opposition to helping working families when they need it most.
He's right. Politically, if Republicans continue their tantrum once the Senate passes the reconciliation bill, and decide to make obstructionism the official party platform for the upcoming campaign, it's going to make it a lot easier for Democrats to convince the convincible segment of independent voters that Democrats are the adults in the room, who are seriously taking on the problems of the country in an effort to provide a brighter future. Republicans, to the same slice of the electorate, may look more like a six-year-old who didn't get his way, as they promise to repeal everything and march America firmly into the past. Up until now, Republicans have tried to paint their own obstructionism as being somehow the Democrats' fault, for not being "bipartisan" (as the Republicans define it). But when they're on the airwaves actually bragging about how obstructionist they plan to be -- on everything, no matter how important the issue -- then they will be seen as truly embracing the "Party of No" label for their own. Which might just give the Democrats a lot better chance in the upcoming election than conventional wisdom now says they have. We'll see.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Obama goes big with a plan to refinance homes; pushes a big stimulus bill that is aimed at jobs; he and the Dems will do well in November. Given the choice between losing their house, or getting a job and the deficit growning, people will vote their paychecks. Frankly if he would give a tax break on jobs in the USA and triple the duty on importation of goods made my companies headquartered in the USA in foreign countries, things would be looking up.
Today the Whirlpool plant in Indiana lose the second shift. Step one of closing the plant begins. Soon 1000+ jobs will be done by Mexicans and the products shippped back to the USA and sold for cheap. We are killing ourselves with this policy. The GOP began it and Obama needs to stop it.
Does anyone besides me find it absolute poetic justice that McCain now faces a viable primary challenge...
NOT from a mainstream Republican seeking to call him to account for his abandonment of all principle....
but from a RIGHT WING RADIO TALK SHOW HOST?.......heh
I've never personally known anyone who actually owned a "petard"...but I'd hazard a guess that John may be sorry that HE does.
It appears he's about to be "hoisted" upon his own.
Now the former superpatriot and "maverick" is left to cling desperately to his own creation and enlist her help in groveling for votes among the Timothy McViegh wing of his much diminished party.......
While all the while his opponent pushes him further and further into adopting the most extreme right wing positions imaginable.
We now know that John will be more than happy to go down that path.......or any other that might lead to his goal....power for power's sake alone (Country First!)
Most unseemly....most comical....but still
A darn shame
TM
"The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates."
The stupid things about this are 1) We were already on a bad path. To shove us down it farther and faster does not make it OK because "someone else started it". 2)I have a hard time reconciling that the Democrats who were so concerned about the war, 'out of control spending (as they campaigned against Bush'), etc could slap on such a huge deficit program without reducing what was already there, first? With a straight face, nonetheless.
Even though I am not a Republican, I will happily join the party of no.
Been out of the country for awhile? Couple YEARS maybe?
TM
Democrats are the party of "Up Yours".
"Reverse" to the time when the 14th amendment wasn't used by ILLEGALS to give citizenship to their anchor babies.
"Reverse" to the time when those who entered our country ILLEGALLY weren't given special treatment, but a one way ticket back to their own countries.
"Reverse" to the time when students could get a job paying minimum wage while going to college. Those jobs are now taken by ILLEGAL ALIENS.
"Reverse" to the time when AMERICAN CITIZENS and LEGAL immigrants could work at a construction site and use their talents.
"Reverse" to the time when all the emergency rooms were open and only real emergencies where handled.
"Reverse" to the time when you didn't have to push a button to hear a message in ENGLISH.
"Reverse" to the time when classrooms weren't overcrowded with children who shouldn't be there and don't speak ENGLISH.
Is that the "reverse" you were thinking of?
more & more vicious. One may well wonder how bad it's going to get.
If they have nothing more to lose, they will stop at nothing.
America will turn on them en masse!
You have misread the people of America. We want less government not more, and the "party of no" is just want we want to hear if what they are saying no to is an expanding federal government.
"But what about Bush? He grew government! Why weren't "you people" opposed to Bush?"
You have a small point, the Republicans have grown government. The big difference is that even Bush seemed reluctant, like he was doing it despite his values.
The Democrats and Obama are growing government with a giddiness and passion unseen before. It is so revolting that the average American can't help but notice and be sickened.
The party of NO!
The Republicans should use that as their bumper sticker for November. You act as if it is shameful while real Americans shout, "Hell Yes! We need more "NO!"
Perhaps you have misread what the Republican Party is: it is NOT "the people of America", but a regional (Southern and Western) party of rural interests that is waning in power and influence. It is a minority party that is staring the fate of the Federalists and Whigs squarely in the face: being obliterated by the Democratic Party after a reasonably good run.
"The big difference is that even Bush seemed reluctant, like he was doing it despite his values."
Do you suppose that the National Debt cares WHY the Republicans increased it elevenfold since Reagan first took office? Does that matter to China? Does it matter to America's strength or our future? Of all the pathetic lines of reasoning possible, that one takes the gold medal!
Good luck at the polls. There were already 6 million fewer votes for the Republican ticket in 2008 than for the Democrats--and 2012 is just around the corner.
I suspect that the Republicans have gone a road too far, with old John MCain and his pissy attitude of not helping on anything to benefit Americans for the rest of the year. With the country in such dire straights caused by these SAME Republicans who caused this mess, it is a win for Democrats if they play hardball.
Add the slurs of the tea party misfits of the Republican Party, the clowns at the Looney Non News propaganda, the militias who have taken over the misfits party with their "Browning" wild west threats to the Democratic members and their families and death threats, and none of the Republican hierachy disowning but condoning them, it is perfect for their defeat in November.
The Republicans need to lose seats and their numbers decrease for backing treasonus and subverting crackpots.
Most Americans want to see less government in their lives, not more.
"NO" in Washington sounds great to middle America.
No to 16,500 new IRS agent "Enforcers."
No to mandates.
No to arrogant back room deals.
No to ignoring the rules to get what you want.
No to the lies.
AND no to run away spending!
You would do well to learn that the American people do not take kindly to threats, against themselves or elected officials who won by a majority.
Neither do they take to blackmail when in the form of violence.
As am American, I can tell you that the do nothing Republicans have gone too far in supporting a rabid fringe group and a bunch of militias akin to the KKK and the neo Nazis.
You, on the other hand, have not an iota to back up your rants except hyperbole and Republican talking points that are as old news as your party and hate radio.
Lots of talk about getting our America back to the 1950s & many other ideas
that don't mean a thing. They are good at inciting people to vandalize, buildings &
hurl threats at Democrats & their families. Cowards all & dumb as a doorknob.
Suck it up republicans. Your fellow Americans in need of health care are getting
it just like you. Got a problem with that? Sure you do. It's, I got mine so to hell with
my countrymen that don't. The people don't want this bill, republican legislators,
say no while they have socialized health care with out shame. Go figure.
I would like to point out that it's primary season. Are you sure this isn't the best thing to campaign on? Sure, it won't be in October, but that doesn't mean it isn't now. They need something that will satisfy their base enough to keep them from getting scozzafava'd, and what are the alternatives at this point? Impeach the president, conspire to murder some members of the House, or block everything in the Senate. Any other possibilities? I'd say they're taking the smart choice from that set of options.
The Republicans look like heros to the average American.
The bumper stickers should read, "Republicans. We ARE the party of NO!"
The average American would be behind saying no to more government growth.
You are a minority!
That is a good point, and one major reason why McCain is trying to tack so hard to the right currently (he's got a Tea Party type primary challenger). The article I wrote Tuesday is kind of a companion piece to this one, and in it I wrote:
"So Republicans are hunting for a new set of attacks to use. Their first reaction was "Repeal!" but saner heads in the party will likely soon realize that this is a non-starter for the general election (although it may be used quite a bit in the primaries).
. . .
Which leaves an opening for Democrats. While the Republicans are busy having primary fights (the Republican Party is in the midst of a pretty major fratricidal fracas, in trying to determine whether the Tea Party folks are driving the bus or not), Democrats can be out there playing offense on the healthcare issue."
I guess that's why I didn't mention it here. Read the whole thing:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/03/23/will-democrats-come-out-swinging/
Since both articles are really sort of tied together.
-CW
If they were really clever they could have their logo flat-out say "Morning in America". As an image, I mean, not in words. (Doing it in words would sound too much like alluding to Reagan rather than learning from him. It would invite unfavorable comparisons. Actually, I was a little surprised that the logo didn't.) You can get a message repeated way more times with a logo than you can with a slogan, too.
Anyway, my thought is still that if you want someone to throw you in a briar patch in October, you don't spend April through August there, putting up a white picket fence and a "home sweet home" sign.