Party of Know

Last January, Republicans were already being called the Party of No by Democrats, wishing to brand them as the major obstacle to the glory of Hope & Change.
A nearly $820 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives Wednesday without a single Republican vote. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it stands a better chance of picking up at least a modicum of bipartisan support.
The President moved to corner the GOP, setting himself up as the symbol of bipartisan spirit.
Obama ventured to Capitol Hill on Tuesday and met separately with House and Senate Republicans in hopes of garnering their support. He invited roughly a dozen GOP moderates to the White House Tuesday evening for an extended discussion -- and cookies and soda -- with chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. And before Wednesday's vote, six House Republicans, five Senate Republicans and an equal number of Democrats gathered for a White House meeting.
Truth was, there was no bipartisanship because the bill was in direct opposition to the beliefs of the minority party.
(GOP minority whip Eric) Cantor said that Republicans objected to what they saw as excess spending in the bill. "I think we demonstrated here that the kind of bill they put together without any input from us was not a stimulus bill. You can call it a safety net bill, a relief bill. It was a spending bill," he said.
For there to be bipartisanship, a bill must be centrist enough that members of the opposition party support it simply because they're afraid not to. Popular demand. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine, tried to coax Democrats into bipartisanship, but liberals couldn't go along with her very reasonable idea of a trigger.
Snowe's idea is to use the threat of a government plan to force private insurers to become more competitive and cost conscious. She has been advocating the approach for months in closed-door negotiations with fellow senators and in talks with White House aides and the president.
Could it be the Dems just wanted to be able to leave Snowe out and make the 'Party of No' accusation?
At some point, Obama's ambitions were destined to collide with the views of a Republican Party fundamentally opposed to almost everything he wants to do. Obama could try to get big things done or he could work easily with Republicans, but he could not do both.
But what's wrong with being a Party of No if you're saving the union from the rampage of socialism. The flip side of No is Yes. Saying no the Dems partisan health socialisation scheme is saying yes to a more moderate bipartisan approach. Saying no to Card Check is saying yes to no more GM's and Chryslers. Saying no to Cap & Trade means saying yes to lower taxes for working people.
As a result, he found himself leaning entirely on support from his own party, forcing a strategy of inside deal-making. This alienated the many rank-and-file Americans who don't like the looks of such arrangements, however necessary they are.
The job of the minority party is to stand in the way of majority power grabs. Republicans know what they're doing. The adversarial process creates clarity for voters - they decide which direction they like best. With the election of Scott Brown, along with GOP wins in New Jersey and Virginia last year, it's plain to see they've chosen the GOP. The Party of Know.