Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jon Walker: Republicans Don't Need To Run On Repealing The Whole Bill (just the most unpopular parts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 05:37 PM
Original message
Jon Walker: Republicans Don't Need To Run On Repealing The Whole Bill (just the most unpopular parts
Edited on Fri Jan-15-10 06:09 PM by highplainsdem
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/15/republicans-dont-need-to-run-on-repealing-the-whole-bill/

Republicans Don’t Need To Run On Repealing The Whole Bill
By: Jon Walker Friday January 15, 2010 12:56 pm

President Obama wants to have a fight with the Republican who will run on repealing the whole health care bill. While I’m sure some Republicans in the deep red districts will run on that platform, I doubt the bulk of the Republican party will. I don’t think Obama will get the fight he claims to want. I suspect many Republicans will wisely run on repealing just the most unpopular parts, repealing the taxes, and against the very corrupt way the bill was written.

There is a history for this strategy. After the Republicans passed Medicare Part D, did Democrats run against it by saying they would repeal the whole thing? No, Democrats ran against the most unpopular parts and the clearly corrupt manner in which the bill was written. In fact, the Republicans can probably dust off every single talking point the Democrats used against Medicare Part D. All the corrupt deals Bush cut with PhRMA for the Medicare Part D bill were protected as part of Obama’s deal with them for this bill.

Republicans will probably run on repealing just the deeply unpopular provisions, like the individual mandate and the tax on health insurance benefits. We know those are winning messages because Obama campaigned on them in 2008.

The GOP might call the bill a bundle of corrupt promises masquerading as reform. They can point to the sweetheart deal for drug companies, the huge subsidies given to the private insurance companies, the deal cut with the hospitals, and the special carve-out for unions. Republicans will also be able to make a big deal about the lack of promised transparency and the many other broken promises from Obama about health care.

I can even picture Republicans attacking Democrats for passing a bill that lacks “Republican solutions” like tort reform and drug re-importation. Yes Republicans can now steal the mantle of being the party that supports drug re-importation because Obama killed in on the Senate floor. Some clever Republicans in bluer districts might even run a campaign on “fixing” the bill by removing all of the Democrats’ sweetheart deals and corporate giveaways.

Will Republicans actually be able to, or want to, deliver on promises like repealing the individual mandate or allowing drug re-importation? It is very unlikely, but that is not the point. The point is that it makes for great campaign fodder.

-snip-

Democrats allowed a handful of powerful special interests and conservative Democrats to kill all the most popular elements in the bill. The public option, Medicare buy-in, drug re-importation, repeal of the anti-trust exemption, cheaper drugs for Medicare with direct drug price negotiations were all removed.

-snip-

Health care reform is not unpopular because of attack campaigns against it. No amount attack commercials was able to really dent the strong support for a public option. The bill is unpopular because Democrats kept removing every popular idea from the bill. Democrats are driving themselves straight off a cliff. They need to change course. Having the President say the only thing the very unpopular bill needs to save Democrats in 2010 is a good PR campaign is not helping the party.

If Democrats insist on passing this bill, they should start by removing all the most unpopular components ripe for Republican attack. Then, Democrats need to turn around and pass additional health care measures that start helping lots of people now–not in the distant future. They need to prove right away that health care reform is a good thing for regular Americans to save themselves in 2010. Finally, in the next few months, Democrats should take all the very popular ideas removed to appease Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson and move them through the process with reconciliation. Democrats can save themselves from this self-destruction, but, like recovering addicts, they must first admit that they have a serious problem.



I've already made it clear I was very happy to see the unions force a compromise on the Cadillac tax, one that helps non-union workers as well. If we're going to get stuck with this bill, that change was a definite improvement.

But I think Walker is right about how easy it will be for Republicans to campaign against the bill -- not against the entire bill, but against sections of it.

I'm still hoping for repeal of the antitrust exemption for insurance companies. I've been hearing there's more chance of that now. But we still don't know if that will be in the final HCR bill. And there's so much else in the bill that's very unpopular -- and so little in it that IS popular, according to all the recent polls -- that Walker is absolutely correct in saying it doesn't do Democrats any favors for the White House to suggest all that's needed is a good PR campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. The truth is ... Republicans don't ever have to run on creating solutions ...
they work best (and get the best media coverage) when they are AGAINST something ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
COLGATE4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. You're absolutely right. Furthermore,
there's a growing frustration and anger in the country because the economy has not turned around as soon as people hoped it would, leading to a growing anti-incumbent reaction (i.e. what's happening in Mass right now). People are in a mood to just "be against everything status quo and anybody who supports the status quo", and the Dems are now the party of status quo, particularly as regards HCR. Does not bode well for us IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Axelrod told National Journal recently that we can't let this election be a referendum on our party,
that for Dems to be successful we'll have to make this an election stressing that even if promises aren't being kept, Dems are still better than Republicans.

Which is true, but it's still very disappointing that with a Democratic president and Democratic control of Congress, we aren't delivering on more of those campaign promises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Bush43 had it easy ...
no matter who controlled the House and Senate, it only took 51 Senate votes to get what he wanted ... and got enough Dems to sign on anyway ...

Even with the House and Senate controlled by the Dems, it takes 60 Senate votes to allow anything to come to a vote ... and a lot of Blueball, er, Blue Dog Dems seem to be intent on leaving it that way ...

and, if the Repugs had their way, as stated last year, it would take 80 votes in the Senate to get anything to Obama's desk for signature ...

Of course, in 2008, I was mocked for "not knowing how the system works" when I said that we would need 61 Dems in the Senate to get anything done (since the "liberal media" kept up the illusion that Lieberman was a "dem") ... seems like I underestimated the number of "Dems" needed ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. More on what Axelrod said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. The Republicans are already making everything referendum on
Democrats. Why do they think Congressional Dems have had such
bad polling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC