$650 billion.

That's how much it's going to cost you for Obama to learn his lesson about bipartisanship.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded President Barack Obama and his team lost control of the message for selling their massive stimulus bill last week, fixating on bipartisanship while Republicans were savaging the legislation.

Assuming any kind of stimulus could help at this point, the stimulus bill appears to be a wasted opportunity. In the end, only about $150 billion would go towards infrastructure projects which would be the best use of stimulus funds. It isn't that the other $650 billion or so was absolutely wasteful--the vast majority of it will be spent on good things. However, with the concessions and tax cuts gained by the Republicans, who will still vote nay, I'm afraid we're left with a spending bill which, in addition to not doing nearly enough to make up for consumer spending in any meaningful way, will also do very little to make it easier to pay back the money.

So the question is, was there a real opportunity to pick up bipartisan support that Obama and the democrats completely flubbed, or was every concession in the process only doomed to weaken the stimulative effects of the bill?

Appearing on CNBC the day after he abruptly withdrew his nomination for Commerce Secretary, Sen. Judd Gregg made a rather blunt admission about the partisan intransigence that the Obama administration is forced to deal with.

From the transcript:

Carl Quintanilla: Well, Senator, since you were nominated it's become quite clear that the margin that the president is going to rely on in the Senate has come down to really three Senators."

Sen. Gregg: I think it's always been that margin.

The point Sen. Gregg seems to be making, is that, no matter what, Obama was never going to get any of the 38 Republican votes he was seeking.

This leads to an important question: if the Republicans had no intention on voting for the bill, no matter what it contained, what was the point in bringing them into the legislative process at all? What Gregg is saying is, and what Limbaugh has emphatically stated, is that the Republicans' only interest is that the Democratic agenda fails, regardless of its intention, or regardless to the interests of the American people.

For the sake of being charitable, allow me to posit that it would seem unfair to say that Republicans value partisan advantage over national interest. After all, would not partisan opposition to a party, whom you believe are not acting in the national interest, be in the national interest?

I would accept this theory, had I not considered their record of governance.

While enjoying a comfortable majority in Congress and the Supreme Court, and with control of the executive, Republicans should have balanced the budget, cut government spending, in particular, cut entitlement programs like social security and medicare, given states more latitude to adopt their own policies, increased individual freedom, repealed gun control legislation, and worked to outlaw gay marriage and abortion. In short, accomplish their agenda.

In fact, we see that Republicans have done none of these things. They do not seem to be interested in enacting their own agenda, let alone that of the opposition's.

Therefore, since they do not seem interested in advancing what they believe to advance the national interest, can we not conclude, then, that their entire philosophy is maintaining partisan advantage?