Four years ago, Republicans stymied Gov. Tim Kaine's billion-dollar transportation plan. Democrats were not pleased. They "accused Republicans … of being partisan roadblocks," this newspaper reported at the time. "The Democratic Party of Virginia yesterday branded the Virginia GOP as the 'party of no' and said Republicans offered no solution."
When he moved on to chair the Democratic National Committee, Kaine debated his counterpart at the time, Michael Steele. "Chairman Steele, the 'Party of No' shouldn't now become the 'Party of No Empathy,' " Kaine said. Democrats in Washington have continued to take great delight in calling the national GOP the "party of no" each time Republicans have declined to assent to any of President Obama's proposals.
The implication is clear: When one party holds the executive branch and a majority in at least one of the two legislative branches, the other party has a moral obligation not to stand in the way of its agenda.
Somehow, Virginia's Democrats didn't get the memo. Republicans hold the governor's office, a huge majority in the House, and an effective majority in the State Senate. Yet Democrats continue to fume, fuss and obstruct as the GOP moves its agenda forward. So doesn't that make them the "Party of No" here?
Of course not. In truth, members of each party have every right to oppose initiatives by the other. And in some states, Democrats have gone far beyond the protests Democrats here in Virginia have voiced. In Wisconsin, Democrats fled the state to avoid fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities and voting on measures destined to pass. In Indiana, Democrats tried to monkeywrench a right-to-work law by boycotting the legislature. To their credit, Virginia's Democrats have behaved like adults. Mostly.
It would be stupid to call Virginia Democrats the party of no just because they have not lain down and let the GOP run over them. It is equally stupid to call the national GOP the party of no just because it hasn't rolled over for the president.
Advertisement