Are the Republicans setting themselves up for failure post-November?

[her209]

Ok, so the Republicans are saying they will be campaigning to repeal the bill. If they get the 2/3 majority in both houses then they can pretty much do what they want, because they not only deserve it, but that they Constitutionally have the power to do so.

But what if they don't get their 2/3 majority? Will they go back to their constituents and say "Sorry, we can't do it." How will their constituents respond? Will they be understanding?

Of course, the Republicans could also try to get bi-partisanship support to repeal the bill, but I wonder how many Democrats would be left willing to do so.

And if the Republicans say only go for a partial repeal of the bill, will they lose the support of the Tea Baggers / "Kill the Bill" crowd?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They only need a majority. 2/3 is so passe.

 

[her209]

They only need a majority. 2/3 is so passe.

I assumed 2/3 majority to override a Presidential veto.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Did not the Democrats compain that there should only be a majority, not 2/3.

If a new party gets control; now the minority wants the rules changes back to favor them.

It will be up to the Republicans to sell to the public what they perceive are the problems and show why. Then the Dems can justify their actions.

The biggest issue is that the full impact to the voters will not happen until the responsible parties (not political party) can not longer be accountable

 

[her209]

Did not the Democrats compain that there should only be a majority, not 2/3.

If a new party gets control; now the minority wants the rules changes back to favor them.

Again, even if the Republicans get a majority of both houses, the President can veto whatever they pass. I don't think anyone has changed that the requirement to override a Presidential veto to be less than 2/3 majority in both Houses. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Nothing will be done to repeal it. Everyone in congress won from this bill. We'll have the usual vote pandering and faux outrage until November, then we'll move onto something else.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Again, even if the Republicans get a majority of both houses, the President can veto whatever they pass. I don't think anyone has changed that the requirement to override a Presidential veto to be less than 2/3 majority in both Houses. Of course, I could be wrong.

You're not wrong. The tighty-righties are too anxious to get their little jabs in at something they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

How about we get rid of all of them (Republicans and Democrats) and start over?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Nothing will be done to repeal it. Everyone in congress won from this bill. We'll have the usual vote pandering and faux outrage until November, then we'll move onto something else.

Yep. As I said before, Rs and Ds snipe and attack each other in public, but once the doors close, they all kick back with a beer and laugh -- at us.

 

[OCGuy]

Yep. As I said before, Rs and Ds snipe and attack each other in public, but once the doors close, they all kick back with a beer and laugh -- at us.

Sad but true.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Did not the Democrats complain that there should only be a majority, not 2/3.

If a new party gets control; now the minority wants the rules changes back to favor them.

Again, even if the Republicans get a majority of both houses, the President can veto whatever they pass. I don't think anyone has changed that the requirement to override a Presidential veto to be less than 2/3 majority in both Houses. Of course, I could be wrong.

I overlooked the veto issue.

I would not think that there would be the collective 2/3 to override.

However, some sections might be addressed and could be accepted and or be veto proof.

If there is sufficient momentum, to force a veto without an override; it could provide ammunition in '12 against Obama.

It will be a matter of picking the proper battles which can be won in one shape or form

 

[werepossum]

There is no way Republicans will win a 2/3 majority. Even if by some fluke they do, some will be in non-secure precincts and refuse to overturn Monstroso. I look for lots of campaign rhetoric and then some minor fixes to the bill, and those will probably be vetoed. Neither party is much on overturning the other party's loot, no matter how vociferously they campaigned on it.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Nothing will be done to repeal it. Everyone in congress won from this bill. We'll have the usual vote pandering and faux outrage until November, then we'll move onto something else.

This, to some extent.

The GOP will 'harp' as little as necessary - just enough to keep the 'base' energized and frothing. If HC doesn't do it you can count on the typical stream of fear on gays, abortion, illegals, terror, etc.

By October the 'Special Interests' (fueled by their new-found SCotUS money) will be running so many BS campaign spots that 70% of the electorate will not even bother to vote in the mid-terms.

Surprisingly, in addition to jobs and the economy, I think banking reform will sway a lot of folks.

That's why the Cons have gone all soft and fuzzy on it after expressing their initial outrage. I'll betcha a nickle their internal polling showed that a significant portion of the 'silent majority' in America want banks to stop speculating with their money ...

And just be a damn bank, fergawdsake. 'Smear and Fear' by the Cons on banking reform will lead to a complete failure in the mid-terms.




--

 

[her209]

There is no way Republicans will win a 2/3 majority. Even if by some fluke they do, some will be in non-secure precincts and refuse to overturn Monstroso. I look for lots of campaign rhetoric and then some minor fixes to the bill, and those will probably be vetoed. Neither party is much on overturning the other party's loot, no matter how vociferously they campaigned on it.

So wouldn't it be politically smarter to campaign on changing/amending the bill instead of repealing altogether?

 

[theeedude]

GOP will not even win a majority if all they are campaigning on is repealing this bill so that insurers can resume rescission and pre-existing condition exclusions. I think they will find that throwing grenades at a reform bill is a lot easier than overturning wholesale what is now the law of the land that does have a lot of good changes in it, and they weren't even that good at grenade throwing.

 

[woolfe9999]

Ok, so the Republicans are saying they will be campaigning to repeal the bill. If they get the 2/3 majority in both houses then they can pretty much do what they want, because they not only deserve it, but that they Constitutionally have the power to do so.

But what if they don't get their 2/3 majority? Will they go back to their constituents and say "Sorry, we can't do it." How will their constituents respond? Will they be understanding?

Of course, the Republicans could also try to get bi-partisanship support to repeal the bill, but I wonder how many Democrats would be left willing to do so.

And if the Republicans say only go for a partial repeal of the bill, will they lose the support of the Tea Baggers / "Kill the Bill" crowd?

The repubs will never get a 2/3's majority. That much is obvious. Therefore, they cannot repeal the bill. The 'repeal the bill' rhetoric is just sloganeering to underscore their opposition to the bill. They have cover for not repealing it though. "We wanted to repeal it but we didn't have the votes." They just have to campaign on the slogan "I will try to repeal the bill. I am for repealing it." If OTOH they make it a national campaign promise, than obviously that is overreaching.

That said, I think they should be careful with "repeal the bill" as a national platform. They are better off leaving individual candidates to posture it that way in certain districts where the bill is especially unpopular. It could backfire if they make every single candidate sign a pledge.

- wolf

 

[dullard]

However, some sections might be addressed and could be accepted and or be veto proof.

The problem with trying to address some sections is that the individual sections are wildly popular even though the bill as a whole is unpopular. If republicans gain control of congress, they still would have a very hard time going against these wildly popular issues.

By then, people will realise that the sky isn't falling. They will have know that their worst fears were not coming true. They will have accepted the health care bill as inevitable. By 2011/2012 republicans will no longer be able to enjoy the "most americans are against the bill as a whole" argument. To start then and cherry pick off the individually popular items is politically a difficult move and a move likely to guarantee Obama as president for four more years.

Will Republicans really find it politically good to (I'm listing things that will be enacted by that time):
1) Deny parents the choice to provide for their adult children's health insurance?
2) Force children/adults with pre-existing conditions back off of insurance?
3) Force early retirees to drop their newly obtained insurance?
4) Take back senior's prescription drug donut hole patch?
5) Take away tax credits from small businesses?
6) Eliminate the tanning tax?

Of those things that will be in force at the time that Republicans get power, I can see only #6 getting any traction. And even then it is such a minor issue that they'll probably pass over it. If republicans try to stop #1 through #5, that'll be political suicide for them.

Until republicans get a 2/3rds majority and/or the presidency, I cannot see any realistic chance of any significant change to this health care bill.

 

[werepossum]

So wouldn't it be politically smarter to campaign on changing/amending the bill instead of repealing altogether?

I think so. Right now the Pubbies are riding high on the "big tent" of everyone who does not want the bill, but eventually they'll have to reckon with two undeniable truths - they'll not have the strength until at least 2012 to repealing it totally, and the opposition is not monolithic. Almost everyone opposed to this bill likes some provisions in it, so even if the Republicans swept Congress in such strength that they could repeal the bill AND override the veto, they would have to replace its good parts before the 2012 elections or be swept right out of power again. And since there will probably not be majority agreement on which are its good parts . . .

I do try though never to underestimate the shortsightedness of any politician. LOL

 

[GuitarDaddy]

It really doesn't matter what the republicans do, they have jumped the shark and there is no going back.

Now that they have started the downhill plunge the weight of years and years of lies and fear mongering will speed them to their fated doom.

 

[nageov3t]

for the hell of it, let's say that yes, the republicans win a majority in the house and senate in 2010.

you know all those democratic senators and congressmen from conservative districts who had to be bribed and strong-armed and blackmailed into voting yes? well, where do you think they're going to stand after such an obvious referendum on the health care bill, especially facing another election in 2012?

but it's a moo point because it's supremely unlikely for the republicans do gain a majority in this election cycle (I think they'll definitely make gains but something truly catastrophic would have to happen for them to sweep the board and win in places like CA and Maryland)

 

[nageov3t]

It really doesn't matter what the republicans do, they have jumped the shark and there is no going back.

Now that they have started the downhill plunge the weight of years and years of lies and fear mongering will speed them to their fated doom.

permanent democratic majority!!!

lol

 

[Fern]

Again, even if the Republicans get a majority of both houses, the President can veto whatever they pass. I don't think anyone has changed that the requirement to override a Presidential veto to be less than 2/3 majority in both Houses. Of course, I could be wrong.

You could, however, completely gut the MoFo through the budget reconcilliaton. And it would be a 'legal' use of the rec process.

Set the fines to -0-. Set the subsidies to -0-. Change every dollar amount and percentage to -0-. Etc, etc.

Then let Obama veto it, repeatedly. I never understood why the Dems, who owned Congress for Bush's last two years, were apparently so afraid of his veto. They never once attempted any of their campaign promises (end the war, fix the budget etc etc), probably never mattered - I've yet to see any of Dem sheeple seem to care.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

permanent democratic majority!!!

lol

I very much doubt that, but I think in the longrun if the repubs keep moving further and further into the tea party crowd, we may see a split that results in a centrist third party, which centrist third party picks up a number of "blue dog" or otherwise moderate dems. Not something I can see in the near term, but possible as soon as 8-10 years.

- wolf

 

[her209]

You could, however, completely gut the MoFo through the budget reconcilliaton. And it would be a 'legal' use of the rec process.

Set the fines to -0-. Set the subsidies to -0-. Change every dollar amount and percentage to -0-. Etc, etc.

Fern

Right, but would they have the votes to override a Presidential veto?

 

[Genx87]

First things first. Republicans actually have to win in November. It is a long time for the propaganda machine on the left to deflect.