June 29th, 2012

A new meme I’ve noticed today…

…among liberals, leftists, and RINO pundits around the MSM and the blogosphere: that there’s no possibility of a repeal of Obamacare in 2012. Even if the Republicans try, they won’t be able to succeed. Or they won’t even try.

The meme’s goal? To dishearten Republicans and conservatives further when they’re already feeling down. It’s psychologically clever, and some are buying into it, especially the Mitt-haters (Mitt is just like Roberts! He’s another RINO traitor!), who had calmed down for a while but now are all revved up, at least on some blogs.

I don’t buy it. I think that more people on the right are fired up by this than are disheartened. But I acknowledge that some are disheartened. And believe me, I hold no special faith in the Republicans in Congress. But I think they are committed to this (partly because it’s popular, and they want to be re-elected). And I think Mitt Romney is as well, and I think he will show some leadership if elected.

[NOTE: There's also defunding, by the way, as an option, if not enough Republicans are elected (especially in the Senate) in 2012 to completely repeal Obamacare, or even if Obama remains president and yet the Republicans control Congress. Remember defunding? I spent some time on the issue way back when.]

30 Responses to “A new meme I’ve noticed today…”

  1. Curtis Says:

    We don’t listen to the illiberals for our marching orders!

  2. Artfldgr Says:

    meanwhile, the magicians left hand:

    The Justice Department moved Friday to shield Attorney General Eric Holder from prosecution after the House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

  3. kaba Says:

    There is always the “Obama” option available. If you don’t like a particular law just instruct the various agencies to ignore it. At the same time proactively attack any entity that does attempt to comply.

    I think the leftist are going to the regret the day they decided to let this administration run unchecked. It is eventually going to bite them and bite them big time.

  4. Mr. Frank Says:

    As a practical matter it will be 2013 before a new president and Senate can be sworn in. If Republicans take the Senate and presidency, repeal is easy in that a tax only needs a simple majority in the House and Senate.

  5. Artfldgr Says:

    Cue entrance on stage right..
    ENTRANCE!!! dont be late..

    An Authoritarian Axis Rising?
    http://thediplomat.com/2012/06/29/an-authoritarian-axis-rising/

    what we see clearly, in recent months, is the emergence of a new constellation of powers.

    Such a concert of nations can only inject turmoil into the international system.

    It is a relatively new phenomenon that represents a radical shift in international politics, perhaps as momentous as the Soviet Union’s collapse two decades ago.

    By coordinating their policies, this grouping of powers is beginning to profoundly reshape global affairs, especially in the Asia-Pacific, Indo-Pacific, and Eurasian regions.

    Who are the members of this group? Today, it includes China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela.

    A very interesting article… i don’t agree with a lot in terms of it being new, and other such stuff. just cause they are just noticing it don’t mean others haven’t noticed more than a decade ago and have been talking about it around deaf ears.

    Quote from article:
    In contrast with the rest of the world, these states never evolved beyond state-run, command economies.

    Quote from article:
    A critical problem for the axis is that half of its members generate most of their wealth from oil and gas sales.

    So it is critical for them to cause turmoil, wars, and other situations where actions inflate the price of these things perpetually (making them artificially expensive – a terror tariff), and insure that competitors do not gain independence to insure such costs are paid.

    Recent reports suggest that to support its budgetary goals, Russia relies on crude prices at $110.00-$115.00 per-barrel.

  6. golo Says:

    I hate to admit it, but I agree with them.
    Obamacare will not be repealed.

  7. james Says:

    Neo: Now you’re talking! We have a ton of ways and means to fight this and them. Oooh I’m loving how the libs are doing anatomically impossible gymnastics claiming it isn’t a tax. Now they have to defend it.

  8. holmes Says:

    If it’s true that a filibuster cannot be used in the Senate to stop it, it could be overturned in January 2013.

    I think Obama lost the election yesterday and I think the Congressional and Senate Dems are running scared. You know why? I’ve only seen Nancy Pelosi and pundits crowing; not the other politicos.

  9. davisbr Says:

    I’m pondering the story-line for a book. A political thriller.

    I could use some help with suggestions for exactly how the central character – a high level federal judge deciding an exceedingly important issue, with literally trillions at stake – was threatened at the last minute, changing his position, betraying his fellow judges (whom had already written their decisions), what he was threatened with (both motives & methods), where he was threatened, and who (amongst a host of seen and unseen “others”) did the threatening.

    Any comments? – Do be clever: I’ve probably already pondered the obvious.

    …and of course this is a purely fictional tale, and any resemblance to persons living or dead, and events current, past, or future, is purely a coincidence.

  10. Steve Says:

    Something like 26-28 states were suing over obamacare. (If that isn’t an indictment of the Supreme Court’s decision, what is?) What if they all refuse to go along with obamacare’s medicaid expansion mandate? Maybe it is time for them to go Galt.

  11. njartist49 Says:

    You are overlooking something: even if Romney repeals – and I do not think he will: he/we will even be fortunate if Obama steps aside: who would prosecute him? – the horrendous SCOTUS ruling will remain, providing an excuse for the next tax/mandate overreach.

    At the same time, the SCOTUS judges could have merely pointed out that as the “tax” bill originated in the Senate instead of the House, the Act is unconstitutional: they didn’t and now we have a de facto amended constitution.

  12. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: I’m afraid if your suggestion were followed it would merely hasten the collapse of private insurance in this country, because Obamacare would not have enough money to continue, plus the poor would probably lose some coverage. Then single payer would probably be passed.

  13. neo-neocon Says:

    njartist: who is overlooking that? It’s the point of a great deal of what I’ve written today, especially this post.

    However, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to repeal Obamacare.

  14. Darrell Says:

    It will have to go for the simple fact that we cant afford it

  15. Jewel Says:

    The one thought missing in all the noise is compliance. What happens when people who can’t afford to buy insurance but who don’t want the hassle of medicaid just don’t buy it. How do you MAKE people obey laws and regulations that are just too heavy? What stick other than a fine will our 800 lb. gorilla be willing to use on the backs of the noncompliants?

  16. rachel Says:

    neo, I agree with you.

    I think the demoralization meme is overwhelmed by the numbers who are fired up, more eager and determined to vote Obama out than ever. As you suggest, the demoralization meme is pushed in large part by mobys, or those who in their disappointment revert to old resentments from the primaries. E.g., blaming and resenting Romney for Roberts’s decision is just as illogical as blaming and resenting Romney for the fact that Palin is not the GOP nominee.

    There’s another factor, too, and that’s intellectual embarrassment. I mean, a lot of bloggers and pundits on the right were out-and-out predicting an overturning of at least the mandate, they started to take it for granted (deceived by the lefty anti-SC pre-spin) and were cocky about it. So in addition to their ideological, political, substantive disappointment, there’s the psychological discomfort of having to eat crow. I think that’s driving some of this disheartened/ defeatist mood (especially the flaring up of old anti-Romney peevishness).

    Meanwhile, while I’ve noticed the inevitable Schadenfreude on the left, who of course would enjoy the right’s disappointemnt and/or outrage, I’ve noticed much less crowing about the triumph of ACA per se than one might expect. Any joy about the survival of ACA per se (as opposed to the prima facie political victory) is remarkably muted.

    I think Obama was expecting to run against the “radical right-wing” Supreme Court (along with the “obstructionist” Congress)… since he has little else to run on. He needs something to talk about other than the economy. Now he needs to run defending Obamacare. And I think by now even liberals ideologically sympathetic to some of the aims of ACA have come to realize that as a piece of legislation and policy it’s a horribly dysfunctional craptastic mess.

    I think they would’ve preferred to self-righteously inveigh against a right-wing court killing a beautiful idealistic “what-if”, than having to defend the awful 2000+ page concrete reality of Obamacare.

  17. rachel Says:

    PS I overstated the point in that last paragraph. Clearly it’s wrong to say that liberals would’ve preferred for ACA to be overturned than for it to be upheld.

    It was ridiculous when some Dem/lib pundits proffered a “heads we win tails you lose” view on the upcoming ruling; it would be ridiculous for us to do the same.

    They “won”– but that victory is (at least politcally) only provisional, and very very mixed.

    IMO Obamacare can be repealed, and will be if Romney wins and we maintain and make some gains in Congress. I think that’s a big part of Roberts’ point: the SC can’t protect or save you from this legislative monstrosity; you’ll have to find another way to get rid of it– vote more wisely next time.

  18. progressoverpeace Says:

    neo-neocon,

    I don’t think too many conservatives give a flying @#% what the leftists have to say about anything. Leftists are despicable, lying scumbags – innately – and plain idiots, so their views on things are of little consequence to anyone with a brain. What does demoralize conservatives, however, are things that Romney does (and continues to do). His immediate response to the ruling was so ridiculous and outrageous that many of us almost kicked our TVs. He had to say, in the wake of that utterly insane and anti-American decision that he wanted to keep the “no pre-existing condition” provision. What sort of idiot even thinks of something so stupid? That is a totally unworkable idea and anyone with a brain wouldn’t even wade into such idiocy, least of which do it as his primary response to the utterly destructive and asinine decision that just came spewing out of the SCOTASS*. These are the things that demoralize conservatives, not what a bunch of retarded leftists say. No one listens to their drivel.

    I am still voting for Mitt because I have no choice. I don’t expect him to do the right thing because he’s, evidently, too stupid to know what the right thing is. But, I’m held hostage to giving the GOP one final vote in 2012 (and that certainly will be my last GOP vote, no matter what).

    You and I discussed the exact possibility of this ruling coming down as it did the night before and I laid out pretty clearly what it would mean – to my mind, at least. Some may disagree with my ideas, but it was obvious that if I, a lowly blog commenter, could be prepared for the coming decision in the particulars and be writing about it in a blog comment, then Mitt certainly should have had a clue, too.

    The impact of this decision is so far-reaching that anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together understood that this was an attack on America, itself, and a very serious (likely irreparable) one on our status as a Constitutional Republic. Mitt could only think to frame his response to this travesty within the confines of particular aspects of the un-Constitutional and unreasonable steaming pile of health insurance edicts that he thought – for some weird reason – the votes of America rested on. Americans hate ObamaCare. They always have. I don’t know why Mitt did this. It’s as baffling as Benedict Roberts’ attempt to “logically” defend his insane opinion in that irrational trash he penned. But, there they are. We seem to be stuck with the both of them. (To be fair, I have a damn good idea why Mitt did that, as most people probably do, but let’s be charitable and not dwell on it)

    As I said, I’ll be voting for Mitt just as I was held hostage to vote for McCain in 2008 (another utterly ridiculous and pathetic candidate who had no business running, to begin with). There’s nothing else left to us. But, don’t try and blame the idiot left for demoralizing conservatives. We don’t care what they say. I don’t think anyone does. They’re America-hating idiots and everyone knows it. Our problems are with the cowards who are supposed to be battling in the political realm on our side. We have an army of Frenchmen defending us. It doesn’t quite inspire, you know. We already saw how the GOP screwed us over the minute the Tea Party put them back in in 2010 and all through 2011 and 2012. They did NOTHING to stop the Indonesian Imbecile and his lunatic gang. NOTHING. They even tried to work with the guy, who had nothing in mind but doing harm to our nation. They even gave more respect to those repulsive and insane Occupoopers than the Tea Party they had gotten a strong mandate from. This is the stuff that demoralizes conservatives.

    Anyway, that’s all history, now. Mitt has my vote, though not my confidence or my trust. … I have no choice. Hopefully, someone will get through to Mitt and he’ll at least start acting like he has a clue (even if he plans on stabbing us in the back the minute he gets into office). There’s no question at all that I think it imperative that Mitt wins (though I don’t have any faith in Mitt righting this nation) rather than the alternative, which would be a fate so bad that … [you can fill in any hyperbole here that you want and it probably still won't be close to what I think]

    *SCOTASS = Supreme Court Of The American Socialist Superstate, which is what Benedict Roberts’ ridiculous “opinion” gave birth to.

  19. rickl Says:

    See Scott M’s comments over at vanderleun’s place. They sum up my sense of despair perfectly.

    …if the GOP says “it’s OK to compromise on this current fight because we plan to win on some future fight”, that’s an excuse for surrender. I’ve mentioned the marathon training analogy. You don’t train for a marathon by sitting on the couch saving up your energy for race day. You need routine and hard training. The GOP, having the reputation of diehard couch potatoes must doubly resist the excuse “I’m saving my energy.” Staying with the analogy, either get out there and make some miles or stop calling yourself a runner.

  20. SteveH Says:

    “”These are the things that demoralize conservatives, not what a bunch of retarded leftists say. No one listens to their drivel.”"
    Progressoverpeace

    But most Americans do listen to their drivel and get their opinions from it. It is the default viewpoint in culture and media. If you want anything else you’ve got to go out of your way and seek it out.

    I don’t envy Mitt Romney. He’s not only got to save America from going over a financial cliff. He’s got to do it while half of Americans have been convinced that heading for that cliff is going to finally bring about equality and fairness.

    Go to any busy Walmart today and hang out a while. You’ll notice our real impediments aren’t judges and left wing politicians. It is typical Americans who are dumber than whale shit when it comes to politics but they can name every person on the cover of a People magazine.

  21. jfm Says:

    ACA’s unpopularity was mitigated by the assumption that the Supreme Court would overturn it.

    ACA is now constitutional. ACA is no longer a theoretical possibility; it’s a concrete reality.

    People now are looking at ACA’s actual effects on their medical care and their pocketbooks. Will this make ACA more popular? I doubt it.

  22. Steve Says:

    neo, how would not expanding medicaid hasten the collapse of private insurance? I could see how expanding the public option would cause private insurance to collapse. In fact I would say that is the goal of obamacare.

  23. expat Says:

    jfm,

    How do you think this will play with the voters?

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obamacare-costs-will-fall-on-backs-of-those-making-less-than-120k-a-year-video/

    Wasn’t there something about not raising taxes on those making less than 250K?

    Gateway also says Obama threatens to veto the defense budget if the military don’t start paying more for their health care. Just so he doesn’t demand more from from all the diversity/afirmative action do nothings in he rest of the economy.

  24. Curtis Says:

    It’s not just a big f**king deal; it’s a big f**king tax.

    B.E.A.you.ti.ful.

    Is it time to wake up yet?

  25. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: Anything that throws a monkey wrench into Obamacare (including lack of state cooperation) opens the door to single payer. I think even though Obamacare is unpopular, it got a lot of people used to the idea of universal or near-universal coverage. Lack of state participation keeps poor people under the system that’s in place now, where the government requires that hospitals treat them and the bill is spread around among everyone else. As premiums become higher in the private market, due to this and other things (such as the fact that a lot of people probably would rather pay the penalytax and wait till they are sick before buying insurance because now they can’t be refused even if they are sick), a lot of prognosticators have said private insurance will go belly up, and people will clamor for government-run single payer.

  26. Rob Says:

    Dear Mitt Romney: Thank you for Obamacare. We all know that you are its true author. Jerk.

  27. Wry Mouth Says:

    I am interested to see, as a test of how long the electorate’s memory is, how many more seats flip GOP or independent in November. I’ll even give Mr. Obama the White House for 4 years, knock yourself out — if the GOP has a half-Nelson lock on both houses.

    As for me, I’m voting Romney, because — heh — he seems to be everything Mr. Obama is, only moreso (see education, career, exec experience, knowledge of Washington, etc.). Moderates don’t scare me.

  28. Thomass Says:

    Team O has played the demoralization game since the dem primaries (re: against the Hillary people). He plays it on everything… but yeah; probably little effect on this. The non left is motivated; not demoralized by this decision IMO.

  29. Thomass Says:

    Heh; looks like the dems are also sending out the trolls to connect Romney to Obamacare.

    I think states should be allowed to provide a universal care plan if they want. As long as you can still buy coverage up and above what it covers if you want. If they can actually pay for said plan; more power to them. But anyway; nothing anti conservative about trying to have a min level of care for people in your state. Esp if there are opt outs (re: it is not based on forced equality as the real goal; just providing a min level of care for everyone).

  30. R Daneel Says:

    Neo – Defund? You have to have an actual budget to not fund something. Otherwise you just throw money where you “deem” it needed as has been the modus operandi for the last 3 1/2 years or since the Year One MOE (Modern Obama Era).

    The law and the Constitution mean less than nothing to these thugs.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge