|
|
|
|
Aftershocks to Passage of
ObamaCare Part One of Two By Dave Andrusko A busy weekend, and a fast start to a new week. Since there are multiple parts to TN&V today and to our new feature www.nationalrighttolifenews.org, let me quickly cut to the chase. Please send your thoughts and comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. The battle over ObamaCare is the hub out of which multiple spokes extend. Let's start with support for its reversal. According to Rasmussen Reports, "Three weeks after Congress passed its new national health care plan, support for repeal of the measure has risen four points to 58%. That includes 50% of U.S. voters who strongly favor repeal. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters nationwide finds 38% still oppose repeal, including 32% who strongly oppose it." At worst, opposition could plateau. More likely, given the magnitude of the issues raised and the intensity of the opposition, it will grow and grow.
Then there is the potential impact next November. The Wall Street Journal ran a piece tied to the retirement of Congressman Bart Stupak. Stupak gave away the pro-life store and agreed to vote for ObamaCare when pro-abortion President Barack Obama said he would sign a meaningless executive order. Stupak said he did not step down after 18 years in Congress because of the enormous resistance his flip-flop stirred. In any event, the Journal profiled seven other Democrats whose vote in favor of ObamaCare could easily come back to haunt them in November. The New York Times, vociferous critics of pro-lifers and a primary cheerleader for ObamaCare, wrote an interesting analysis on Sunday. Under the headline, "1994 Republican Rout Is Casting Shadow in 2010," the story compared the 2010 situation for Democrats with 1994, Bill Clinton's first off-year election that cost Democrats nine Senate seats and 52 seats in the House. The article makes for fascinating back-and-forth reading. Early on Adam Nagourney and Majorie Connelly write, "Yet 1994 seems an imprecise way to predict how this contest will play out. While there are intriguing parallels, there are some important differences as well." Okay that suggests it wouldn't be as bad, right? No. "And though Democrats might look to those differences as glimmers of light -- 'There are so many things different from '94 that I think this will turn out very differently,' said Stanley Greenberg, who was the White House pollster in 1994 -- the divergences seem as likely to benefit Republicans as Democrats, analysts in both parties said." But, having said that, the article reverses field and concludes that because Democrats know in advance the terrain is treacherous, they'll work harder and suffer less.
Just ignore the silver linings the authors work so hard to find. Realize that the party of abortion is in serious trouble, as Nagourney's and Connelley's own examples illustrate. (Obama's approval ratings are in free-fall; the energy is all with Republicans; the consensus that Republicans will make serious gains "mak[es] it easier for the Republican Party to recruit candidates who might otherwise have stood aside. It could also make it easier for the party to raise money and enliven supporters.") One other aspect to the aftershocks of ObamaCare. Columnist Michael Barone argues today that the Obama's next nominee to the Supreme Court will be pressed to answer questions about the constitutionality of various components of ObamaCare, specifically the "health care bill's mandate to purchase private health insurance. The federal government has never before commanded citizens to buy a commercial product. Could the government command you to buy breakfast cereal?" Barone expects the nominee to decline to answer but also anticipates that Republicans might aggressively purse the issue that "Some 14 state attorneys general are trying to raise" in court. He believes, "Just raising the health care mandate issue helps Republicans given the great and apparently growing unpopularity of the Democrats' legislation." Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. And be sure to read www.nationalrighttolifenews.org.
|
