Finally got around to watching the full video of the famous Obama/Republican session in Baltimore.

The full video is appended below, but be forewarned, it was an interesting and unusual exchange, but it's an hour and 27 minutes. The political press generally declared that both sides were happy with the event: Obama because he was able to push back on some Republican lies and half-truths about his ideas and his record while simultaneously modeling civil discourse across the partisan divide; the Repubs because they demonstrated that they have actual ideas and proposals and are not just the party of "no."

But there's a point about that not-just-party-of-no piece that I want to test. When you are the minority, and you use every means to block proposals that have majority support in both houses of Congress, what does it mean that you are not the party of "no"?

Let's use health care as an example. (It's more than an example, it's the main example.) Repubs are now emphasizing that they have health care ideas, especially three: capping awards on medical malpractice judgments, expanding Medical Savings Accounts, and allowing health insurance companies to sell, unregulated, across state lines.

Personally, I have questions about each of these ideas that would need answered before I could decide whether I believed those would help or hurt our health care system. Obama's public position is that he is happy to embrace worthy Republican proposals and has already done so. But, he implies, Repubs give him no credit when he does.

But I would like him, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, to also make clear -- clearer than they have to date -- that if adding more Republican initiatives to the comprehensive bill would mean that Republicans might drop the filibuster and support the overall bill, they would immediately make a serious effort to get a version of those ideas into the bill.

But Republicans -- we're-not-the-party-of-no Reublicans -- should also say: "This is what it would take to get us on board. Adopt these ideas and we'll vote for the bill."

They haven't said it. In fact, they have pretty much said the opposite. They have pretty much said that Obama and the Democrats should drop the Democratic bill and embrace a Republican approach.

Boehner: 'Common sense, yes; big government takeover, no'

Top House Republican John Boehner (who was Obama's host in Baltimore) was on "Meet the Press" Sunday and David Gregory did ask him whether there was a version of this bill, one that might include his proposals, that he could say "yes" to. Correct me if I'm being unfair, but I believe Boehner said "no" to saying "yes" to anything except the Republican ideas. Here's that exchange:

MR. GREGORY:  Although the president took on this idea of it being leftist policies on health care, indicating that it was, in fact, the move to the center and cost containment that cost him some of the support among — within his own party.  My question is, if you — you heard the president, in the State of the Union, say that saying no is short-term good politics, but it's not leadership.  You heard the State of the Union, you heard the president's Friday address.  What are you prepared to say yes to, specifically?

REP. BOEHNER:  Leadership is about standing on your principles and, and opposing those policies that, that we believe are bad for the country.  But leadership is also standing up and offering what we think is a better solution.  And when it comes to issues like health care, the president did his best to blur the differences, agreeing with us on five or six points, but didn't refer to the other 100 commissions, boards, mandates that are in this government takeover of health care.

MR. GREGORY:  What are a few things that the president could do — maybe he could convene Republicans and Democrats together on C-SPAN, as he said he would initially, and acknowledge that it was a mistake that he did not fulfill that promise during the Friday retreat, get everybody together.  What are a few things that Republicans could say, "Hey, if these could be included, we could vote for this"?

REP. BOEHNER:  Well, I'll give you an example.  Last year I told the president, you know, what — when we can be with you and when we agree with you, we will stand tall with you, as we did on Afghanistan, as we did on Iraq, as we did on things like teacher quality and a number of other areas.  But when it comes to, when it comes to health care, we could agree on a some commonsense steps to make our healthcare system work better.  But we are not going to put the government in charge of people's health care.  And, and it's something that there's a fundamental difference here.  And most of American has already said no to this big government takeover.

I believe Boehner has answered my question. He believes that Obama and the Dems in Congress should abandon their own ideas ("government takeover," he managed to call it three times) and just embrace the Republican ideas (which are, after all, just "common sense").

But the Dems have very large majorities in both houses and are guaranteed of controlling the White House for at least three more years.  It is just possible, that the Dems actually prefer their approach.

So is Boehner, and are Republicans, prepared to acknowledge that their strategy of holding out for their approach and using all legal means to block the Dem bill means nothing much happens on health care this year (assuming that they hope to win majorities in both houses in the midterms?) No, actualy, make that nothing happens on health care for three years, until they can win the presidency?

But what if the Dems (when they are in the minority, in one or three or five or seven years) are thinking the same way (only in reverse about which set of proposal make sense)? What if the Dems are willing to use all legal and procedural means to prevent the Republicans from accomplishing anything on health care? Do the Repubs acknowledge that they could actually win control of both houses and the White House in 2012 or 2016 and still not be able to pass their bill unless they also acquire a 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate majority?

Unless, of course, the Repubs decide to go nuclear, to get rid of the filibuster or to sneak it through via bogus reconciliation.

But don't get me started.

OK, for full context, the Gregory-Boehner transcript is here. The Obama/Repub/Baltimore video is below.