When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that his number one goal was to make President Obama a "One Term President", I understood the source of his stance.
The President and his Democratic caucus pushed through a massive and massively unpopular bill, ObamaCare, with an intense encroachment into the power and scope of the private citizen, compelling voters to purchase health insurance or pay a fee.
The program was defined as a tax by many on the outside, including George Stephanopoulos, who repeatedly quizzed the first-year present on the wording of the mandate. Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed that the mandate was in fact a tax, and the largest in American History, at that.
The country is already facing a multi-trillion dollar national debt, the deficits have passed the trillion dollar mark for the past three years, three stimulus packages have been unleashed on the country, two during President George W. Bush's presidency, with one more during the first months of Obama's Presidency, with nothing to show for the effort besides government largesse, waste, and a growing national debt.
Now, outsiders are complaining that both parties have come to Congress precisely to win, not to get anything done. Mitch McConnell wants to make President Obama a one-term president.
Yet what were the motives for wanting to take down the President in the first place? Obama has pressed through an unpopular individual mandate, one which a majority of voters in this country opposed then and now. Currently, 56% of voters want to repeal the legislation, and the Romney camp is taking in millions of dollars within days, and even hours, as the Romney-Ryan camp continues to mount and maintain their position of less government and lower spending to bring this nation's fiscal health back in order while restoring the primacy of constitutional rule and the separation of powers, state sovereignty, and individual rights and respect.
I am not dismayed at the "hyperpartisanship" which some viewers have painted on the McConnell's cutting remarks, as well as the growing number of legislators uneasy with the telling and terrible rise in government indebtedness and entitlement burdens. If the two parties have no greater interest than to advance their own causes at the expense of governance and constitutional rule, then the voters and the states have the authority every two years to register their displeasure with the current state of affairs.
All in all, this frustration is good for those who want to stop Big Government from getting bigger, who want to put an end to the profligate borrowing and spending which are becoming unsustainable, driving away entrepreneurs and investment, and divesting government of its basic powers to protect our rights, secure the boards, and moderate the economy and the money supply with minimal yet necessary regulations.
"Embrace Hyperpartisanship", I say. It will only engage more people to get involved to get the federal government to get back to engaging in its enumerated powers.