Ruth Marcus:
It would have been hard to predict, as the stimulus debate began, that President Obama would end up losing more Democratic votes than gaining Republican ones. More than twice as many, actually: Seven House Democrats voted against the measure, three Senate Republicans for it.
Actually, it wasn't hard to predict at all. I wasn't alone in pointing out that there was no reason for Republicans to vote for this legislation -- if it works, Obama would get all the credit, and if it doesn't, whoever voted for it would get the blame. Throw in the danger of Club for Growth-backed primaries, and there's little motivation for Republicans to vote for a bill that will pass anyway.
What is hilarious about the stimulus debate was how poorly Republicans managed it. It shouldn't be easy to spend $800 billion, and there were so many ways to question the efficacy of this bill's spending priorities. But Republicans decided to invent the San Francisco marsh mouse out of thin air, and turned that into the symbol of their opposition. Why the bizarre tactic? Because as we learned last year, the GOP is obsessed with the "earmark", and even though this stimulus contained no earmarks, they are apparently unable to function as an opposition party without railing against earmarks. Hence, the San Francisco marsh mouse was born. Meanwhile, the public scratched their heads in puzzlement and decided they liked what the Democrats were doing much better.
Republicans didn't win the stimulus debate, but they managed to deflate Obama's dream of bipartisan hand-holding, tarnish the stimulus as stuffed with lefty pork, and -- to borrow a phrase from the inauguration -- pick themselves up and dust themselves off.
"After the November elections the party was beat back and defenseless," GOP strategist Ed Rollins told me. "I think this allows them to stay unified and will help rebuild their financial base. They at least have a pulse."
Again this "unity" crap. As I questioned earlier, since when was "unity" a problem with the GOP? But suddenly, coming together for a vote means their woes are over? Is there some logic in there that is eluding me?
But here's the thing -- Republicans had a decision to make -- either work with Obama to try and influence the legislation that will flow over the next two years, or oppose. If I were the Republicans, I'd oppose. That's what an opposition party does. Oppose. (A lesson Democrats never seemed to learn.) Now that's different than obstruct, but even that has its place in an opposition party's arsenal.
So yes, the GOP decided to oppose. It was the obvious choice. But here's the rub -- that's not a big loss for Obama. In fact, by checking out of the decision-making process, Republicans have made it easier for Obama to craft truly Democratic solutions to the nation's problems. Without GOP input, we'll have better legislation moving forward. So while opposing and obstructing might be the better tactical approach for Republicans, it means that substantively this country will be heading even further to the Left than would otherwise be the case.
So everyone wins! We win because we'll hopefully see far better legislation than we would if Republicans decided to accept a seat at the table, and Republicans win because they can highlight clear distinctions between them and Democrats. The voters win because they'll know exactly what they're voting for at the ballot box. And the country will win because voters still prefer Democratic ideas and hate Republicans.