D-day, on her/his own blog today raised--and answered--the question:
Obstructing on the basis of principle or holding out for a particular point of compromise is a very different animal than obstructing for obstruction's sake, obstructing because, if a bunch of egghead economists say we need a massive public spending program, then real Murcans have to stand astride history saying "stop". As we hear a lot about bipartisanship and Republicans and Democrats having to come together to solve the nation's problems, as we hear from a President whose focus is "what works" instead of ideology, someone's going to have to stand up and mention that the modern Republican Party defines ideology through negation. Someone might want to mention that there's no compromise with those who reflexively oppose for no reason other than denying your opponent a victory is seen as a higher good than helping someone get a job or health care or a higher wage to support their family. Someone might want to suggest that accommodation is impossible.Or as I have written elsewhere, and often: You cannot compromise with someone who wants you gone. There's no "compromise" with "gone." One is or one isn't, "gone." No in-between. A "quick-and-dead" scenario.
Obama and the Dims now own the whole mess. That 'mess' includes Pukes like McConnell and Inhoff, and a bunch (41) of others, who will do ANYTHING if it diminishes or prohibits any possible accomplishments that might redound to the benefit of the Dims. This is, unfortunately, that Inescapable First Law of Institutions cropping up again: Individuals wielding power within any Institution will suffer the diminishment, even the destruction, of that Institution so long as their own power within that Institution remains undiminished relative to the Institution.
(Ps: The golden, smiling Hindu figure at the top is Manjushri, alleged at one site to symbolize "blockage." Most everywhere else, Manjushri is the avatar of wisdom. Is that gilding the lotus?)