David Frum: Supreme Court Won't Save GOP on Health Care

[wyldwolf]

Though Republicans are hoping the U.S. Supreme Court declares President Obama's health care law unconstitutional, David Frum points out the GOP has no alternative and says they will be punished for it by voters.

"Republicans will need a Plan B. Unfortunately, they wasted the past three years that might have developed one. If the Supreme Court doesn't rescue them from themselves, they'll be heading into this election season arguing, in effect, Our plan is to take away the government-mandated insurance of millions of people under age 65, and replace it with nothing. And we're doing this so as to better protect the government-mandated insurance of people over 65 -- until we begin to phase out that insurance, too, for everybody now under 55."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/after-the-supreme-court-rules.html

(Interpret as you will.)

[zipplewrath]

1. Obama will

Look, they've had three years to poll test and focus group the heck out of ACA. They know what is popular and what is not. So they'll merely put something together, probably with Obama's help, that keeps all the truly popular stuff (at least in name, the details might not be the same) and dump primarily the madates. 15% thing will probably be gone too. But see they'll have Obama over a barrel in some ways. He can either lose his signature accomplishment, or he can do the whole "bipartisanship" schtick. Which do you think "no drama" will do?

[CAPHAVOC]

2. Ugghhh!

Hope you are wrong.

[zipplewrath]

4. At best in degree

We can probably argue the degree to which the GOP will get what they want, and the degree that Obama gets to keep what he wants. But one way or another the progressives will be left "out of the room" and the Blue Dogs, Obama, the GOP and the industry will sort it all out.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. With fewer progressives and brave Democrats standing up, I'm not sure

what you expect Obama to do. Whatever serves as ACA's "replacement" must be able to get through the House. With the Teabaggers and cowardly congressional Democrats who refuse to fight, what do you expect? There needs to be something there that can pass.

[zipplewrath]

8. In our business we call this the "blame strategy"

We know where the potential weaknesses in our design are so we start lining up excuses for why we fell short as part of the design process. That way, when we don't succeed at meeting our design goals, we already have our excuses well structured to cover for our failures.

I see you're well at work on the blame strategy. (Of course, I could be accused of working on mine I suppose).

As for what he COULD do.

He could do what LBJ would do which is to collect the progressives and liberals together and work out a winning strategy WITH them, instead of shutting them out of the room and getting to work with the GOP. He did this with single payer and it succeeded on losing the public option as well.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. There are too few liberals/progressives in this Congress and you know that.

I'm not going to entertain your ignorance, as I'm quite familiar with it.

You can either insult or attack me with your pettiness, or you can get on my side by working to elect more liberals and progressives to Congress AND the state and local office.

Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you and you're now on IGNORE.

Have a nice evening.

[zipplewrath]

15. No, I don't know that

And neither do you. What I do know is that Obama and Reid have demonstrated that they didn't even want to TRY. Which is why they kept single payer "out of the room" at all.

But you've got your fingers in your ears so theirs no point in explaining it.

I always love people who come to discussion forums to NOT discuss things.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. "blame strategy"? Do you even read your own posts?

Talk about the "blame strategy":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=25841

It's all Obama's fault. Let's "blame" him, and then accuse others of playing the "blame" game. It's just too rich...the irony, that is.

[zipplewrath]

14. Actually the whole leadership

I don't limit my criticism totally to Obama. Both Pelosi and Reid are significantly culpable here too. Reid is especially so, as Pelosi truly tried but ultimately was screwed by Obama's and Reid's failures.

And what you are quoting isn't a "blame strategy" (which demonstrates you don't understand what one is) but merely a prediction of future events should ACA be completely overturned.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. I bow to your superior intellect.

Now pull the other one.

My comments don't come from souped up theory, posited by yourself, it comes from an astute knowledge of your posting history.

[zipplewrath]

21. What you missed

What you don't understand is that a blame strategy is a pre-emptive action. The posting you referenced was a post action assesment.

What part of that is escaping you?

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. "What part of that is escaping you?"

Perhaps it's your complete lack of self awareness?

[Arkana]

16. No, I think it's more the "Acknowledging Political Reality" strategy.

You can't just imagine away the fact that there are like 250 Republicans in the House, 60 of them are Teabagger Caucus members, and all of them are devoted to see the President fail.

[zipplewrath]

17. Giving up strategy?

The intention of many here seems to be to line up excuses for failure prior to ever trying.

The funny part is I am openly guilty of assuming that the democrats WILL fail, prior to them ever starting, and no one wants to argue with me about that, merely that they have a justifiable reason FOR failing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. He says they'll be punished *if the law is held to be constitutional*

He says nothing about what will happen to Republicans in 2012 elections if the mandate is struck down as unconstitutional. It's his guess (and he admits he's no expert in this area) that they'll keep the mandate; the rest of the article is "what could the GOP say after that. as their proposal for health?"

[zipplewrath]

6. They'll still use it

If they lose, much like abortion, they'll still use it for fund raising, and campaigning. The mandate is unpopular, and may become more so when people start seeing it in their tax bill. Truth is, there are probably some in the GOP that hopes it DOESN'T get overturned so they can campaign on the issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. It does undercut your "Blame Obama First" performance in #1, though

[zipplewrath]

10. Different scenariois

Post #1 was about if it WAS overturned.

This was about if it WASN'T.

[Cosmocat]

11. This is a no lose/win for the Rs

if it is upheld, it will continue to be what is it now - an arcane policy issue that 95% of the country does not understand in the least, and believes is a disaster because that is what they Rs have been screaming for three years unchecked by the "liberal media." It probably will lessen the general negativity of it a bit, because there will be a disconnect between all the hyperbole of the right and the fact that the SC upheld it.

The Rs will continue to use it in their bizarre way, to rally the troops, and it won't change the election much at all. They just will move to the next thing that they can try to get people all enraged about.

If the mandate is struck down, it is a BIG "win" for them.

It will validate in their minds, and provide an example to promote, of their whole schtick that BO is power hungry and going against the constitution. It will be simple and easy to say, this PROVES he is out of control.

It will force House members and senators who are on the ballot in November to run from anything associated with HCR. If they don't flat out repudiate it, they will get HAMMERED with advertisements screaming "BACKED OBAMAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB!"

They will SCREAM that he is WEAKENED, and the "liberal media" will gladly channel this concept.

It will be the first thing they can actually stake a flag on for this election, and they will absolutely wear it out.

[Arkana]

18. Who gives a damn what the right wing thinks?

They have thought this for three years--I fail to see how upholding the bill changes ANYTHING. As far as I'm concerned they're all lost causes.

And if it gets overturned, Democrats get to run on "The unelected Supreme Court decided that children shouldn't be allowed to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26, that people with preexisting conditions shouldn't be allowed health insurance, and that the Medicare donut hole should remain open. It seems that Republicans like activist judges when they make rulings they agree with."

[Cosmocat]

19. the media gives a damn what republicans think, is the point

They drive the messaging, whether we like it or not.

A few years back, before the 08 presidential, there was an R and D representative on the Chris Mathew's show.

The D was POUNDING the R on Iraq.

Mathews cut him off flat said, "Sorry, Rs get the high ground on defense, just the way it is."

Not verbatim, but it is he said.

And, while skittish, Mathews is a fricken democrat.

Sorry - Ds' don't get to run against "activist judges." Only Rs do.

If this gets over turned, they will SCREAM that this proves that President Obama is power hungry and trampling on the constitution.

The media will channel this.

Whatever the Ds say won't matter.