At one time during President Obama's early first term there was a fight going on similar to the one we're witnessing at the moment. At that time it was over the president's economic stimulus package. The GOP argued its ineffectiveness in terms of where the package focused in terms of economic growth, they argued against the price tag of the bill as well as the political favors that were embedded throughout the now infamous monstrosity. The economic stimulus package overall was a complete failure that generated little if any true growth that was both recognizable and sustainable. During the fight Democrats united on a talking point that carried from the moment the bill was crafted until the very last vote was cast during the 2010 midterm elections. The Democrats labeled Republicans as "The Party of No". The party that refuses to do business with the president even though the Republicans have always been willing to do business; most of the time to a fault and detriment of the party itself. But no, the GOP was constantly attacked and charged with trying to sabotage the president at every turn even though Mr. Obama from the moment he was sworn in has gotten 85% of what he's wanted as president.
That wasn't enough then and it still isn't enough. Liberals believe the president by virtue of majority has the right to whatever he so chooses. They believe the party of opposition should work against their own purpose as the party of opposition because better to honor the twisted and unconstitutional idea of majority rule than to actually do the job of the party in opposition which is to maintain a balance between powers and prevent the other party from outright unrestrained rule. I would support Democrats in this effort if they were playing the role of opposition party, which they did during the Bush administration. Funny, I never heard this "Party of No" label thrown about by Republicans or the media during those years.
There is nothing wrong with saying no. In fact, saying no more than saying yes is actually the purpose of being morally upright and reasonable in how we live. Why? it's simple: There are more things in our world that we should reject and say "no" to than things we should accept and say "yes" to.
Restraint in all areas is a noble trait one would hope, but in Washington saying yes is the ticket to setting yourself and your buddies up for life. Saying yes brings the dollars from crooked donors, saying yes gives you an advantage over your opponent during political campaigns, and it also makes you the town favorite among the establishment K street regulars and those who dally in the cocktail lounge at all the best DC gatherings.
Despite all that is tempting Republicans shouldn't fear being cast as the old crusty white men who won't say yes to the entitled bi-racial college student occupying the oval office. I know out culture and our evil media like to paint those in traditional authority as bad, mean, heartless, but there is nothing bad, mean or heartless about being the one who puts a hold on the uncontrollable lust for lack of consequence and willy-nilly governance.
As I said in a previous effort I typed, someone has to be the parent in all of this.
Parents are there to say "no" when kids want to do things that aren't safe, or smart, or reasonable. They will hate you for it now, but in the long term they will look back and appreciate you having been right.
Don't run from labels that fit you because those can be worn as badges of honor if the they truly represent something honorable. The fight against Obamacare and the irresponsible cowboy spending of Democrats and the president is the most honorable fight going on in American government today.