“It inspires both our grass roots and our business allies, so for us it’s a dream issue,” said former National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.).

It also unites moderate and conservative Republicans because they share the concern that stronger unions are a long-term threat to the GOP's ability to rebound.

Card-check “seems to get a lot of people very excited,” current NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) said Wednesday, warning that passing the measure could bolster union roles. “Unions typically don’t support Republicans, and that’s a lot of money that can be used to run against Republican candidates.”

The Republicans and their core supporters are united in seeing the Employee Free Choice Act as a threat and as something they can oppose without suffering much in the way of backlash.

GOP strategists and party leaders are approaching the issue by focusing on the loss of the secret ballot, a proposition they call undemocratic.

“Many people, not just Republicans, see this as a blatant power grab,” said Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party. “It’s very easy for people to oppose card-check because it’s so undemocratic.”

Now...as I explained in my last post, Obama has so far scrupulously avoided providing the Republicans opportunities to unite, rally, and reconstitute. How, then, should he react to the telegraphed intention of the GOP to rally around opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act? If he is using his standard playbook, he will refrain from heated take-it-or-leave-it rhetoric, welcome opponents to provide their input and signal that he respects their views, and then go ahead and push for what he wanted all along. Take a look at his response to this question from the Washington Post editorial board:

Q: The Employee Free Choice Act - a timing question and a substance question: in terms of timing how quickly would you like to see it brought up? Would you like to see it brought up in your first year? In terms of substance, the bills that you talked about in your floor statement on the Employee Free Choice Act problems with bullying of [inaudible] people want to join unions. Is card check the only solution? Or are you open to considering other solutions that might shorten the time?

Obama: I think I think that is a fair question and a good one.

Here's my basic principal that wages and incomes have flatlined over the last decade. That part of that has to do with forces that are beyond everybody's control: globalization, technology and so forth. Part of it has to do with workers have very little leverage and that larger and larger shares of our productivity go to the top and not to the middle or the bottom. I think unions serve an important role in that. I think that the way the Bush Administration managed the Department of Labor, the NLRB, and a host of other aspects of labor management relations put the thumb too heavily against unions. I want to lift that thumb. There are going to be steps that we can take other than the Employee Free Choice Act that will make a difference there.

I think the basic principal of making it easier and fairer for workers who want to join a union, join a union is important. And the basic outline of the Employee Fair Choice are ones that I agree with. But I will certainly listen to all parties involved including from labor and the business community which I know considers this to be the devil incarnate. I will listen to parties involved and see if there are ways that we can bring those parties together and restore some balance.

You know, now if the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me. If their arguments are we think there are more elegant ways of doing this or here are some modifications or tweaks to the general concept that we would like to see. Then I think that's a conversation that not only myself but folks in labor would be willing to have. But, so that's the general approach that I am interested in taking. But in terms of time table, if we are losing half a million jobs a month then there are no jobs to unionize. So my focus first is on those key economic priority items that I just mentioned.

Now...is Obama's response a sign of weakness that indicates a little wiggle-room and lack of resolve? Or is it simply a savvy way of taking the steam out of the Republicans' attempt to argue that the EFCA is going to be rammed down their throats and thereby unite their caucus and energize their activist/donor base? The Democrats need one, maybe two, Republican senators to sign off on the EFCA. If they can accomplish that, the bill will become law. What is to be gained by assisting the Republicans in whipping up popular opposition to the bill? How would polarizing the issue help win over Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter or Susan Collins or George Voinovich?

A strategy that makes sense when you have a 50-50 divided senate makes no sense in a 59-41 divided senate. Obama would rather maintain 78% support and trust from the American public than score narrow rhetorical points in a lightly-read interview with the Beltway's paper of record.

Do you see what I'm saying?