If the applause following his introduction was any indication, Mitch McConnell is a popular man with convention-goers. As the architect of the "No" strategy, McConnell bit into Obama's popularity with long, drawn-out legislative battles and tough, uncompromising rhetoric. He blocked judicial nominations, kept Democrats from fully staffing the administration, and encouraged the Tea Party as it organized against Obama's policies. And of course, along with the House Republican leadership, McConnell was integral to the GOP's huge gains in November.
On the other hand, McConnell might be the one person most responsible for Democratic successes in health care and financial reform. There were times during that health-care saga when Democrats wanted a compromise, rather than a long, drawn-out fight. Moreover, powerful elements within the White House and Congress were willing to make that compromise, and scale down aspirations to a few tweaks and expanded coverage for children. But by refusing to settle for anything less than a complete win, the Right unified Democrats and empowered them to push for a full bill. After all, there were no half-loaves.
Understandably, the attendees I spoke too weren't so keen on this perspective. Most were happy with McConnell's work as minority leader in the 111th Congress, with Grover Norquist explaining that Republicans would have muddled their message by cooperating with anything, "If you have your fingerprints on the destruction of jobs and opportunity, you can't then turn around and say, 'that was a stupid bill.'" In the very likely event that Republicans fail to repeal the Affordable Care Act, it will be interesting to see if conservatives begin to differ in their understanding of McConnell's tenure. Will he still be the man who did his best against the Democratic onslaught? Or will he be the one who gave liberals what they needed to win?
