Datechguy notes that, contra the somewhat misogynistic and certainly low-rent exuberance coming out of the DNC over having the Obamacare health tax upheld, Democratic street monsters are quietly freaking worried about how the ruling will interfere with their candidates’ electoral chances. The problem is that nobody likes to run on tax increases, and Obamacare is an at minimum five hundred billion tax increase* on the middle class. After noting that, and the large sums of money being raised by the GOP on short notice, Datechguy concludes.
As General Nathanael Greene said after Bunker Hill: I wish we could sell them another hill at the same price.
Ayup.
Moe Lane
*The US Supreme Court also defanged the Obama administration’s plan to foist Medicare costs off on the states, so expect it to become a heck of a lot more obviously fiscally irresponsible, very soon.
I was just thinking about this. Before yesterday, I was watching Obama’s ads about Romney, and thinking “okay, so I need to hire Romney to fix the economy, but obviously he didn’t make Massachusetts into a “boom” state.” Also, I’ve assumed Congress is going “R” for many reasons. Therefore, as a fan of divided and ineffective government, I could justify re-electing the president as a relatively benign act. Question for the left: Can I do that today?
To put it more simply: Before yesterday, there was a potential that you could vote for Obama without voting to keep ACA in place. Today that’s impossible. Because of this, yesterday may have been the high-point of the entire progressive era. If the backlash looks anything like the gay marriage backlash, this will decide a lot of elections for a lot of years. I live in NC now, and there is exactly 0 possibility that Obama wins here now…
@NotSoBlueStater, a side question. How long do you think a GOP-dominated Congress, who are painfully aware of the Tea Party, would keep the gloves on while dealing with a re-elected Obama?
Hint – the other big news of yesterday is a drop in the bucket.
Mew
@acat: Wouldn’t matter. Obama is ideologue enough to protect ObamaCare at all cost. He won’t care if his approval rating drops to 20% after Novemeber, or if the Senate goes 59-41 Republican. He believes he’s achieved a once in a generation victory. This will be legacy enough for him. He’ll simply veto everything for four years, then ride off into the sunset.
NotSoBlueStater,
No, you wouldn’t be able to justify a split ticket vote such as the one you describe, mainly because such a tactic has (Like a lot of things in politics and society) passed the Point of Diminishing Returns.
We must keep in mind that the passage of Obamacare is the classic case of the Law of Diminishing Returns. Think of all the effort that was undertaken to pass (and uphold) this law, when the benefits were so meager.
The problem, @Brsd S, is that the last time we handed the keys to the Republicans, they simply did what politicians always do. What Republicans say about many things makes sense to me. Problem is: Electing them has yet to make any of those things happen. Therefore, we’re better off when they pass nothing at all. I actually think yesterday sealed Obama’s fate, so the this theory will get tested sooner than later.
They may enjoy the tears of the conservatives in the short term…but come November we will enjoy the best thing in life: to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
And by women I mean Bawney Fwank.
ACA allowed Scott Brown to win easily in MA. But yesterday was a win? Another random thought for the day: Guiliani for VP!!! He’s is brilliant and articulate on market-based solutions to the real healthcare crisis: Cost.
I like teh idea of Guiliani for VP – NYers (the #1 reason that state votes Democrat) love him, and NY could potentially go red. A longshot yes, but c’mon.
Guiliani is pro-choice and thus like Condi Rice, will not be the VP. An interesting selection would be Bobby Jindal who did wonders with the Louisiana DHH (at age 24!) – at the time Jindal took it over, the LDHH was 40 percent of the state budget and employed over 12,000 people. During his tenure as secretary, Louisiana’s Medicaid program went from bankruptcy with a $400 million deficit into three years of surpluses totaling $220 million (wikipedia, so grains of salt).
He’s not a big personality, so I think that would play into Romney’s strategy of keeping the focus on the failed policies of Obama.
Giuliani? Not only no, Hell no. Two northeastern liberal Republicans on the ticket and you can basically kiss off any enthusiasm in the base. Oh, they’d still end up winning the south, but the negative coattails they’d have in the downballot races would kill the party for a decade, win or lose, at best, and at worst they’d split the party at a time when it really, really does not need to be split.
I don’t pay any attention to what Nancy Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz say – the first is in a safe seat and can indulge a rich fantasy life and teh second just indulges in a rich fantasy life. The reality of ObamaCare is that it was deeply unpopular – see the 2010 midterm elections for proof. The fact that the USSC just said the three-letter word that the Democrats twisted themselves into knots to avoid saying gives me pause to think that the unpopularity of ObamaCare will only deepen. Making the thing that caused the greatest midterm upset in 70 years even more unpopular has got to have many Democrats both panicked and depressed.
Buy stock in Seagrams, Jack Daniels, etc.
Giuliani is the politician whose statements best reflect my world view (that’s may be why only liberals have ever accused me of being part of “the base”). That said, YouTube Giuliani on Health Care” and watch how comfortably and fully he articulates the right answers on what (as of yesterday) became THE big issue. It’s like watching Milton Friedman. He really “gets” it.
James Taranto makes an interesting observation in the Wall Street Journal‘s “Best of the Web Today” column:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304058404577496662674376768.html#printMode