Republicans for Obama
You are hereForums / Issues / Healthcare / Supreme Court ruling on Affordable HC Act is In....
By Kim Miller - Posted on 28 June 2012
And it was largely upheld. Interesting!
FWIW, here's my two cents for how this does - or does not - impact the November election.
1. Presidential race: not much impact, really, because it's still going to come down to the trajectory of the economy come November.
2. Senate races: MUCH impact. A complete overturn by the SCOTUS would have provided too much fodder for Republican nominees in key Senate races. The ruling means GOP candidates can't say, "See, we told you so..."
Look for GOP to frame it as: Obama and Dems said the mandate was NOT a tax to sell it to the public and congress. SCOTUS says it IS a tax.
a) we told you so
b) Obama is adding to taxes, no way we can ever tax another American ever on anything because of this quadrillion, billion kazillion dollar tax health care bill.
Look for Democrats to sit with their thumb up their aspirations and not fight tooth and nail, every day, attack the new REPEAL OBAMACARE charge that starts...NOW!
Agree with all of the above. I can tell by the comment sections of news stories about it that the GOP talking points spread like wildfire 'cuz your points a & b are being posted ad nauseum on the Internets.
Intelligent article that exposes the "entitlements ruin countries" is not backed up by those pesky facts and examples.
I seem to recall that one of Greece's problems was rampant tax evasion. Not hearing about that too much anymore. Was that not a factor?
I agree w/ everything you said except the first two words. "Politics Aside." No such thing.
1. As the inconsistantly brillilant Rachel Maddow recently pointed out people are in favor of many parts of the bill, "as long as you don't call it Obama Care." If people in large numbers cannot tie the essentials of the message to the sound bite or title of the message, the message has failed.
1A. Chris Matthews on HARDBALL today, "People hate the term Obamacare." Gee, I wonder if that's why the GOP picked up on the term two years ago and used to drive the bill's approval advantage from about 46-41 at time of passage to about 53% wanting it repealed now. I wonder why liberal commentators who use the phrase, like Matthews and Maddow, finally figured out that it is a rhetorical loser, like "pro-life" (which liberals should have reconfigured as "government-mandated obstetrics" or some such but the stooges surrendered that battle on day one decades ago).
2,Who gives a rat's rear end if Obama cares? The actual bill is called AFFORDABLE CARE -- that title puts the focus on the health and economic needs of Americans. As Obama Care, it focuses not on citizens/patients but on the greater glory of BARAKIMUS OBAMAMUS, CARER SUPREMUS, COMPASSIONATOR SUPERBUS, BIPARTISANIMUS MAXIMUS. (Sorry, I just taught a summer course which included Livinius' THE EARLY HISTORY OF ROME.)
3. The Obama brand on this bill, which he has apparently embraced, re-enforces (needlessly) some of his genuinely unappealing traits: professorial condescension, "go it alone" stoicism, cluelessness about middle class people ("they cling to their guns and religion").
It also obscures the bill's message. It is the single most important reason why Democrats cannot convince people who like what is in the bill that they should like THE bill.
By all means, let's continue to use the phrase "Obama Care" every chance we get.
The SCOTUS decision upholding the constitutionality of the mandate does give Mitt and the GOP a campaign issue but, with economic recovery slowing down, I don't believe they can afford to focus on repealing the ACA and forget about hammering Obama on the economy. Maybe the GOP has decided that since 60% of Americans believe that GWB is primarily responsible for the bad economy rather than BHO, maybe they need to focus on something else like repealing ACA.
As far as conservative justices deliberately handing Romney a campaign issue, why would the chief justice be the one to do that. Scalia could have done that and suffered the wrath of the ultra right wing (he's going to retire soon). Roberts is on the court for a long time to come. Of course, being appointed to life terms instead of elected kind of makes political criticism a non-issue. And the two rulings in a row where the SCOTUS teed off the ultra right might well energize the base for Romney, but they weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. Jan Brewer, despite her upbeat assessment of what SCOTUS let stand of Arizona's immigration law, has to be really disappointed.
All in all, I can't see where it's been a good time for the GOP. But going forward, we need continuing Obama appointments to the court rather than Romney appointments. We don't need a backwards looking court for the next 20 years, which we could have if Mitt wins the white house. Thomas, Roberts, and Alito aren't going anywhere soon, so Scalia being replaced with another Scalia (which Romney would likely do) would be a long-term loss for progress. Scalia being replaced by a Kagan or a Sotomayor, however, would be a long-term win.
Says it all.
When is America going to stop listening to these clowns?
Sarah Palin: Hows That Hope-y, Change-y Thing Working Out for You?
Feeling pretty good right about now... Thanks for asking Sarah.
You have to wonder if, by now, with the Citizens United ruling proving to be such a farce (especially the part where the majority, including Roberts, decreed that PACs and the candidates' campaigns may not coordinate their activities -- sheesh) if Roberts started to wonder if history was going to treat him as a right-wing stooge. This vote should inoculate him against that charge.
Have you noticed, when conservatives lose, the losses are always deeper and more far-reaching, than anyone could have possibly expected. Chief Justice John Roberts set the stage to keep peace with the Supreme Court for a very long time.
The pundits are going to blame Roberts on the re-election of President Obama. Another Obama term with maybe another Sotomayor and another Kagan added to the Court got my gut instincts going full force.
July 11th. That is the date when, according to an interview of Congressman Phillip Gingrey (R) of Georgia on the radio show Marketplace, members of the House will try to repeal "Obamacare". The Republican controlled House will probably succeed in repealing the ACA, but will, in all likelihood, stall and eventually die in the Senate. *sigh* What a waste of time!
"Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug." -- Mark Knopfler
Fundraising for the base... congressional/local campaign arrow for the November quiver ("On July 11th, I stood on the floor of Congress and voted to repeal Obama care; send me back to Congress and you can count on me to bla bla bla").
As of now, all federal, state employees and elected officials should be mandated to belong to this program.
I am still waiting for WH and Dems to formulate a serious rapid-response operation to head off, counter, and pre-empt GOPcampaign bullshop about the Affordable Care Act. (Sending liberal spokespeople to be interviewed on MSNBC shows with paltry six figure, left leaning viewerships ain't going to cut it.)
Then again I have been waiting for them to do that since ACA passed in March 2010 when President Obama determined that cable news was not a serious threat and that America would be open to a rational debate on the substance of the bill... this 4 years after cable news turned war hero John Kerry into a coward.
GOP already has their message formulated and their B.S. machine up and running, and the ruling is...what... four days old?
When Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid say that it is time to move on and America doesn't want to re-hash the debates of 2008, I can only pray that they know they are full of it and have to say that as a pro forma gesture of good leadership.
If they are not already hunkering down for an all out, sustained GOP/Fox News campaign against ACA, they are going to lose in November -- and they should!
We can't expect miracles like Democrats all being on the same page, praising this legislation and campaigning on it as a GOOD thing. However, I do see SOME good messaging from SOME Democrats and more importantly some stumbling on the GOP side and it may be enough for them to back off and want to change the subject. Republicans were put in a tough spot on the morning shows today, asked whether Romneycare had a tax. They seemed pretty uncomfortable and could not answer. I'm sure they will fundraise big time off of "full repeal" and it will excite the base. But a full effort to repeal this law IN PUBLIC could be a mistake, it may upset average people once they are more educated as to what exactly they are repealing/once they see what the GOP wants to take away. Sure, we have to count on the media and Democrats to do the educating but I think opinions can shift. The Supreme Court decision may have opened up the idea that the Affordable Care Act isn't so scary and is well within the law/Constitution. I'd have to see more polls to get excited, but this poll shows support for the Affordable Care Act up quite a bit right after the Supreme Court decision. If the trend continues, I'm sure Republicans will think twice about making this a huge campaign issue.
Support for the health care reform law increased after Thursday’s ruling in which the Supreme Court upheld the law, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows.
The number of registered voters who support the law rose from 43 percent before the decision to 48 percent afterward. Opposition went down to 52 percent from 57 percent.
Perhaps most important for Democrats, the survey showed support among independents jumping 11 percentage points, from 27 percent just before the ruling to 38 percent afterward. Among Republicans, opposition to the law dropped from 86 percent to 81 percent, thought the partisan divide over the law is still stark.
The poll also showed evidence that the decision had re-energized opposition to the law. Fifty-three percent of voters said they would be more likely to vote
I saw the jump in the polls for ACA and Obama. I am pleased to see that, but that jump is from the SCOTUS ruling, not Democratic messaging.
Having Romney's gubernatorial record helps, but at some point he will probably have to say, that was then, this is now, (a la pro-choice flip). It's a problem for him but I know we agree, Obama can't coast on that one.
"We can't expect miracles like Democrats all being on the same page," Well, I guess I do expect this miracle. Not being on the same page has a name -- a couple of names, actually: "going rogue," "being a maverick." There is a track record here. According to the newspapers I read, it lost last time out.
Independents, Democrats, and some sane remaining Republicans have a choice to make in the Fall for improving our country: implementing legislation that attacks the single largest cause of middle-class bankruptcy in America (medical care expenses for elderly and/or catastrophic illness) or ensuring that Democratic spokespersons and leaders keep that roguish, free wheeling independence that makes of them such charming, engaging, unprogrammed TV interview guests.
Apparently Pres. Clinton and Gov. Rendell have decided that America will be better off by making sure that Democratic celebrities, like themselves, will be quoted for weeks after their interviews, not like those boring talking-point robots McConnell and Boehner.
Every conservative leader wakes up every morning asking him/herself, "how can I shaft Obama today?" And Clinton and Rendell wake up every morning asking themselves, "how can I shaft Obama today?" Bipartisanship at last!!!!
I would like to see more ads like this. I like it because it is positive, shows the human side of health care reform and gets the facts out all at the same time. Curious as to your take on this ad, Tom.
RepublicansforObama.org is not affiliated with the Obama Presidential Campaign