Could a “Tea Party Supreme Court” save Obama’s bacon?

posted at 5:00 pm on March 31, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Here’s a strange question which I’ve also been considering lately, but from a very different angle than the subject of today’s discussion. Could a Supreme Court decision striking down the individual mandate in Obamacare – if not the entire law – actually work to Barack Obama’s favor in November? Bob Shrum puts a new spin on the possibility in his column at The Week Magazine.

For those not familiar, Shrum is a long time Democratic operative who worked for Al Gore and John Kerry on their presidential bids, along with many, many others. So you won’t be surprised that the first page of this lengthy essay is dedicated to nothing more than glorifying Barack Obama as the most important president of the modern era, the author of a brilliant new age of social justice and, if I’m not mistaken, the inventor of Teflon. He also can’t resist the urge to denigrate the members of the court who are generally perceived as being more conservative, calling them “Injustices” and “Tea Party justices” and “politically infected” members. But by the time you get to page two, he eventually meanders back to the subject of the article and posits an answer to our question.

(Note: even this part is a bit long, so I’ve pared it down to save space, but you can click through for the Full Monty.)

A politically infected court could produce a politically unexpected result that would confound the conventional punditry, strengthening him and weakening Romney and the Republicans.

Here’s how.

First, voters who hate Obama and Obamacare — and sadly in our riven politics, hate is the right word — were never going to vote for him anyway.

Second, Americans in the grey zone of doubt about health reform, confused by the fog of lies about the bill, would move on and vote, as they mostly would anyway…

Third, the Democratic base and women would rally to Obama because they would understand more plainly than ever the threat of a Republican president packing the Supreme Court with more injustices hostile to reproductive rights, to equality for minorities and gay Americans, and to essential protections for the environment and workers on the job.

Fourth, the aftermath would also engage those who would lose out if the law is swept away, especially young people no longer covered by their parents’ insurance..

This is a case where it looks – at least to me – as if Shrum may be asking the right question, drawing the entirely wrong lesson from it, but still coming up with an answer that could hold some merit. (Hey, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while.) But here is my very different premise which Shrum’s hypothetical situation might generate.

Not only Mitt Romney – still the presumptive nominee if you ask me – but the rest of the field have been running on a promise to repeal Obamacare. (How a president does that without the help of Congress is never explained, but never mind that for now.) It’s one of the signature moves of each of their campaigns. But what happens if the Supremes come out in June and throw the entire thing out?

You can’t really spend the next four months running on a promise to repeal something which no longer exists, now can you? Even for the majority of people in the country who now seem to be opposed to the law, it’s going to be pretty hard to use that as a lever to motivate them to get out there and vote in November. Such a decision by the court could, at least in theory, take one of the biggest bullets out of the GOP chamber in the final stretch of the race.

Now, I know that some of you will argue that this actually benefits Mitt Romney, and you might be right. If Mitt is seen as the Godfather of Mandates, as Plouffe asserts, then perhaps this wasn’t a good argument for him to use in the first place. But still, taking away an issue he might have been weak on is not the same thing as giving him an issue he’s strong on. And without Obamacare, his chief arguments have been on jobs and the economy. But with unemployment still seeming to be on the way down, that particular battle front begins to look weaker as well.

What’s left? Gas prices? Perhaps, I suppose, but left to stand on its own as an issue, prices at the pump begin to look like pretty thin gruel. So, this brings us to the exit question. Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Just come out with the decision already. The suspense is killing me.

By that, I mean boring me to death with all the speculating…who hasn’t come out with several stories on this by now?

cozmo on March 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM

For those not familiar, Shrum is a long time Democratic operative who worked for Al Gore and John Kerry on their presidential bids, along with many, many others.

So, a loser. And his opinion matters why?

Mitoch55 on March 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Do Muslims like pork?

Kini on March 31, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

You deserve HuffPo “wages” for that insight. Know what I mean?

cicerone on March 31, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

No. Romney’s not worth electing, and Obamacare is worth destroying.

Stoic Patriot on March 31, 2012 at 5:07 PM

First, voters who hate Obama and Obamacare — and sadly in our riven politics, hate is the right word — were never going to vote for him anyway.

Heh. And those that were going to vote for Obama were going to vote for him regardless.

Second, Americans in the grey zone of doubt about health reform, confused by the fog of lies about the bill, would move on and vote, as they mostly would anyway…

You mean the parts about its real cost and Constitutionality? Those parts?

Third, the Democratic base and women would rally to Obama because they would understand more plainly than ever the threat of a Republican president packing the Supreme Court with more injustices hostile to reproductive rights, to equality for minorities and gay Americans, and to essential protections for the environment and workers on the job.

Again they were going to have this to rally around anyway. Sheesh.

Fourth, the aftermath would also engage those who would lose out if the law is swept away, especially young people no longer covered by their parents’ insurance..

Most young people don’t care that much about it and are disillusioned already in Obama’s failures. (they did not care enough to buy their own insurance because they know they are very unlikely to get sick and really need it anyway.)

What a bunch of drivel.

Strike it down.

It is unconstitutional and not just the mandate.

CW on March 31, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I now declare the words shrum and crotch are interchangeable.
A. scalia

rik on March 31, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Now, I know that some of you will argue that this actually benefits Mitt Romney, and you might be right.

No “might be” to it. I know this reality hurts ABR misfits everywhere but it is what it is…

cicerone on March 31, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Regardless of the decision from the SCOTUS, I think a lot of people who voted for him in 2008 so they could pat themselves on the back for “making history” and to prove to black people they’re not racist aren’t so enthused about a repeat of that act. They’ve seen the man in action and what he really believes at work… and many if not most do NOT like it.

Yakko77 on March 31, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Law upheld – BAD for Republicans!
Law dismissed – BAD for Republicans!

If Obama walked out on to the White House lawn and proceeded to punch a kitten in the face, that would also be bad for Republicans.

mudskipper on March 31, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Thats a helluva plan. First put the the country through absolute hell and pass a pile of crap which is deemed unamerican. I’m a pretty good chess player but even I didn’t see that move.

rik on March 31, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Could a Supreme Court decision striking down the individual mandate in Obamacare – if not the entire law – actually work to Barack Obama’s favor in November?

An interesting question. The short answer is, “No.”

But the long answer is about 750 words long, but can be summed up thusly: No.

rogaineguy on March 31, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Uh, how about the wars, Guantanamo, Black Panthers, Fast & Furious, EPA, Solyndra, Shovel Ready, and more? Yes, gas prices. Yes, housing.

Obama sucks.

HopeHeFails on March 31, 2012 at 5:14 PM

But with unemployment still seeming to be on the way down, that particular battle front begins to look weaker as well.

This annoys me. Look at unemployment by state and geographical area’s. If you use national composite % it is not the same.

What’s left? Gas prices?

You been to the grocery store lately and bought a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk? Bought insurance? A new washer or dryer? Replaced your AC or roof? Bought your kids new clothes? School supplies?

Sorry I don’t see what you do.

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Second, Americans in the grey zone of doubt about health reform, confused by the fog of lies about the bill, would move on and vote, as they mostly would anyway…

Most voters don’t study issues, they form opinions based in large part on emotion and biases. One of those biases is the bandwagon effect: People love winners and hate losers. If the Supreme Court makes Obama a loser, his poll numbers will drop. If the Court makes him a winner, his poll numbers will rise. Not more complicated than that.

Fabozz on March 31, 2012 at 5:15 PM

mudskipper on March 31, 2012 at 5:12 PM
If this suprises you, you must not be married!!

rik on March 31, 2012 at 5:16 PM

ANY SCOTUS decision on obozocare will be bad for the d-cRAT socialist extremists and, therefore, good for America….

If the Supremes appropriately flush the obozocare atrocity, it will be another sign to all Americans that OBOZO and the d-cRAT socialists are working against America, against the US Constitution and against the best interests and wishes of all Americans. It will further increase the landslide defeat of all d-cRAT socialists in Nov. 2012.

If the Supremes allow this atrocity to stand it will further energize the electorate to throw out those that created this insult to America and further increase the landslide defeat of all d-cRAT socialists in Nov. 2012 by electing a president and congress committed to its repeal.

TeaPartyNation on March 31, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

No, the argument will need to turn to the fact that this was a blatant power grab, an unconstitutional bill as the Supreme Court just ruled and to give Obama another 4 years of unrestrained rule would be disastrous.

Keep reminding the people how this was passed and that with no re-election to worry him will become even more brazen.

TendStl on March 31, 2012 at 5:16 PM

PIG!?

KOOLAID2 on March 31, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Jazzs’ question above:

What’s left? Gas prices? Perhaps, I suppose, but left to stand on its own as an issue, prices at the pump begin to look like pretty thin gruel. So, this brings us to the exit question. Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

If the mandate is overturned, and the entire law thrown out, we will be left with;

1. Gas prices.
2. Stagnant housing values.
3. Unemployment levels too-high-to-hide.
4. Hey, look how much time/effort/energy team O wasted on a law so bad, it was tossed even before it was fully implemented.
5. Continual assault on our freedoms.
6. Completely misguided energy policies.

massrighty on March 31, 2012 at 5:17 PM

In other words, some stupid Dem operative desperate to spin this as being something other than a unmitigated disaster if it gets struck down wrote a long column in a liberal newspaper.

manofaiki on March 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM

So, this brings us to the exit question. Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

No. It would fundamentally transform us citizens into wards of the state. That is much more important than any one election. Besides, if you can’t defeat Dear Liar on the other issues as well as an unconstitutional power grab, you’ve got no business running.

rbj on March 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM

You can’t really spend the next four months running on a promise to repeal something which no longer exists, now can you

No, one can’t; however, one can run on…..insurance offered across state lines, tort reform, freedom from hidden mandates, etc.

herm2416 on March 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Romney was never that convincing on the repeal of Obamacare anyway. After all, Romneycare is the father of Obamacare. Your basic assumption that high gas prices and joblessness are not strong motivators to get rid of Obama is weak.
If Romney wins the Republican nomination, which looks likely, he has to immediately attack and keep attacking Obama’s lack of effectiveness on the economy and foreign policy. He mustn’t let up at all.

Gladtobehere on March 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM

A politically infected court

Translated: “Only Republicans can be Activist Judges”.

Del Dolemonte on March 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Third, the Democratic base and women would rally to Obama because they would understand more plainly than ever the threat of a Republican president packing the Supreme Court with more injustices hostile to reproductive rights, to equality for minorities and gay AAmericans

As a gay American, I have lost a lot and it had nothing to do with my sexuality. My business, my investments, my home and my family. So I can’t get married? LOL. WTF ever.
I will think of that why you destroy my small business, my medical care/choice, and tax my ass off.

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 5:20 PM

The dirty little secret is if the whole thing is struck down (please G-d) he could enact a law that makes everyone eligible for Medicare; essentially instant single payer.

If they strike only the mandate, and leave the rest of the law, it would create such chaos and impossible conditions for the insurance industry that it would lead to the latter’s demise in short order.

The court must either strike down the whole thing or declare it all Constitutional. There is no middle ground. Judging from the orals last week I think (hope and pray) that they are leaning towards striking it all down.

Rixon on March 31, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Most people who hate ObamaCare still think that the healthcare system desperately needs reforming, particularly to lower costs.

So, if ObamaCare is thrown out, the Republicans argue that that’s what you get with a hyper-political Democratic Party that cares more about its constituency groups and winning elections than solving problems and following the law.

And you come up with a plan that enhances competition, that goes after the trial lawyers, that goes after the unions, that goes after the overcharging outrages, while you keep enough of the “that what’s a first-class country provides to all its citizens” stuff to satisfy most of the electorate.

bobs1196 on March 31, 2012 at 5:21 PM

I dont buy that this would help Obama in any way.

There are a lot of democrats who simply do not like Obama and think he has squandered a good opportunity to pass progressive legislation. Even on Obamacare, they think he caved. And if it gets struck down, and was basically his only “accomplishment,” I dont see them rallying around Obama.

Quite to the contrary, I think it will discourage his base because he would appear hopeless.

As for Republicans, clearly they are not voting for Obama. However, if it is 5-4, this would show the need for a Romney presidency, with several SCOTUS justices getting near retirement age. You cannot risk something happening to Scalia, or even Kennedy, and having Obama replace that justice with a 45 year old progressive. Conversely, if Ginsburg or Kennedy retire, there is a chance to impact the court for decades to come.

As for independents, it is a bit more tricky. If Republicans respond by doing nothing, and give Obama a talking point, this can force them to Obama’s side. So, if it gets struck down, Romney must (and I cannot emphasize this enough) beat Obama to the punch and come out with his own, comprehensive plan, that includes popular measures that many people will benefit from. In addition, when Congress gets back, Boehner needs to push the Romney plan through the House and force a Senate vote to take that line of attack from Obama.

So, overall, if done right, this will not help Obama in my opinion, but might greatly help republicans.

milcus on March 31, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Almost 70% of the people polled want this 1000 page monstrosity to die.

If the Dem. party thinks they can then spin it’s being struck down into electoral gold this Nov., yeah.

Good luck with that.

manofaiki on March 31, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Obama is going to lose because he sucks.

Key West Reader on March 31, 2012 at 5:24 PM

What’s left to run on?

ARE YOU F’ING KIDDING ME, KID?

How about: Trade Deficits, Runaway EPA Strangulation of the Extraction of Natural Resosurces to include A Viable Energy Policy, The Devaluation of Dollar to Minimize the Impact of.Foreign Countries holding our DEBT, Minimizing that Debt, Entitlement Reform- Medicare/Medicaid/Social Securty And Federal Welfare Scam Crap like EITC/EBT and anything else that pays pdople for being worthless.

HOW ABOUT AN INTELLIGIBLE TAX CODE
HOW ABOUT SECURING OUR BORDERS AND THEN WE TALK IMMIGRATION REFORM

sheesh

M240H on March 31, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

Only if all you care about is getting an (R) to replace Obama and not the country.

Dollayo on March 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Mitoch55 on March 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Listen to Jazz Shaw, Al Gore and John Kerry were both better presidents than Obama and this guys opinion is important, because obviously if the supreme court says that your back room aberration of a bill is unconstitutional, it helps you get re-elected, or something.

Rusty Allen on March 31, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Rixon on March 31, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Hmmmm……

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 5:27 PM

As a gay American, I have lost a lot and it had nothing to do with my sexuality. My business, my investments, my home and my family. So I can’t get married? LOL. WTF ever.
I will think of that why you destroy my small business, my medical care/choice, and tax my ass off.

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I’m not gay, but I also lost my 15 year old business and laid off 9 workers in February. I couldn’t take it anymore so now I’m a busy little worker bee in a corporate setting. It’s not that bad, actually.

When Americans (especially women) wake up and think about how much they’ll enjoy going to some place akin to the DMV for their pre-natal and annual check ups perhaps the message will get through. Can you just IMAGINE a man going to the DMV for a prostrate exam?

No to Obama and No to Obamacare. They both suck.

Key West Reader on March 31, 2012 at 5:27 PM

“Bob Shrum puts a new spin on the possibility…”

Well now…

… a Democrat political hack trying to spin the disaster for Obowma and the Democrats in a positive light.

Jazz, you have forgotten that the Democrats lie for a living…

… and anything they say is just the next round of spin for the talking heads in the media.

Remember the “war on women“…?

… The fact that Obowma and the Democrats used the first years of his Presidency to try to shove this unconstitutional power grab down our throats during one of the worst exconomic times in over a hundred years, and they did so by lying about it is not going to sit well with the average voter.

Especially when the voters are being hit in the pocket book hard…

… Very hard!

Bob Shrum can shove his article up his a%%…!

Seven Percent Solution on March 31, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Nope. Zero is all washed up.

massrighty on March 31, 2012 at 5:17 PM

As well as Solyndra and this week’s new company that is “imploding” A123 of Mass. Makers of batteries for electric cars…

How many is that now? Five?

dogsoldier on March 31, 2012 at 5:30 PM

It’s just desperate spin. Obama spent a full year on this nonsense, which is still opposed by a clear majority of voters, and did nothing for the economy except enrich his cronies.

Shrum and Tomasky and others are trying to make the shi’ite sandwich they are going to have to eat sound appealing. Barnes has the better perspective on it.

If Obamacare falls, it will be a devastating rebuke to the president. The crown jewel of his presidency will have been repudiated as unconstitutional. His pretensions of uniquely knowing how to get things done in Washington will be shattered. Obama will be a diminished political figure. He will become a lesser president, far from the top ranks where he has envisioned himself.

Yeah, we know the leftists will then run against the “right wing” court – as if the left wing isn’t far more monolithic (unless we swing one of them, which would be crushing to the spinmeisters). So what?

Obama can blame whoever he wants for his own incompetence and radicalism. The tide has turned. The socialists are going to be on the run, or run over.

Adjoran on March 31, 2012 at 5:31 PM

This whole post is just rubbish and more characteristic of beltway punditry than any sense of how we people feel in flyover country.

ObamaCare and the Mandate, including the drastic extension of IRS powers, no severability clause, the authorized civilian military force (organized like our military), the death panels and on and on, is just unconstitutional. The SCUS should strike down the entire bill and make a statement, finally, about ill-conceived legislation and the lack of regard by the executive and legislative branch for our Constitution and limited enumerated powers. And they should go ahead and mention other bad court decisions like “wickard vs filburn” and throw them out as well.

Expecting the legislature to go back and kill this whole thing isn’t realistic. The republican establishment is full of gutless wonders more interested in getting back control of the levers of spending than cutting back on the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government.

Most of us will be more motivated to both contribute and work the presidential campaign for the defeat of the current administration if the SCUS rules the whole bill unconstitutional than if they pull another political ruling out of their hat that creates uncertainty and contempt for the law.

Falcon46 on March 31, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Better hope the SCOTUS strikes down ObamaCare.

All these “promises” from the GOP establishment candidates, like Willard, to “repeal” it are …

H O G W A S H

If the SCOTUS finds this thing constitutional – the GOP establishment will not have the testicular fortitude to repeal that law. They’ll use the SCOTUS judgement as a “safe harbor” to leave it in place and …

Only thing you’ll see out of the good ole establishment GOP is a few “tweeks” to O’Care so they can “act” like they’ve done something.

In fact, I can envision an Oval Office speech from Willard himself on how national healthcare REALLY is the way to go and, by golly, the NEW Megan McCain / David Frum Republican party can do it up right for y’all!!

HondaV65 on March 31, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Jazz, even if Obamacare is off the table, thanks to the Supremes, there is still a treasure trove of things to use in a campaign. The anti-business policies, the weak foreign policy and cowtowing to unfriendly regimes, the continued high unemployment, corruption in the DoJ, rule by mandate and regulatory authorities, czars, lack of leadership, and the list goes on.

Nothing anyone can say about Obama will sway true believers, and probably most blacks (sadly), but independents as well as right of center Joe Sixpack are sick of this poser.

simkeith on March 31, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Hmmmm the democrat talking points of late seem to be skewing to articles about how great it will be if the SCOTUS rightfully overturns this socialist power grab. How many artcile have we seen on this topic?

They seem very convinced Obamunistcare is going down. I sure hope it does.

dogsoldier on March 31, 2012 at 5:37 PM

So, this brings us to the exit question. Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

Hell no.

Strike it down, strike it down, strike it down. Our freedom is worth infinitely more than an election.

Theophile on March 31, 2012 at 5:37 PM

bobs1196 on March 31, 2012 at 5:21 PM

A major reason the healthcare system is so screwed up and expensive is because of government interference in the first place, starting with Medicare and Medicaid, the FDA and the proscription of health insurance across state lines. Add to it the regulatory regime on doctors and the need to practice defensive medicine because of malpractice suits.

Then the government attempts to solve the problem that it created in the first place by instituting even more onerous regulations. This is what they do to us and every aspect of private enterprise.

The solution is in the free market; let it do its thing with the absolute minimum of regulatory policy needed and then see health care costs drop significantly.

And this whole thing isn’t even about health care. It’s about health INSURANCE, which is a product that most who can afford it and want it get it. The 40 million uninsured is a phony number. Strip out illegal aliens, the young and the very wealthy who don’t want it and you get maybe 10-15 million people.

So, for 5 percent of the US population, the government has to take over health care?! It’s all about control. They control it and they control 315 million people in every aspect of their lives – forever.

Rixon on March 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM

HondaV65 on March 31, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I hope you’re wrong. I don’t trust Willard. At all.

Key West Reader on March 31, 2012 at 5:39 PM

“My signature legislation which attempted to control your very health was unconstitutional. Vote for me.”

FAIL

BKeyser on March 31, 2012 at 5:41 PM

No. This is just another instance of the left telling the right that what will be best for the right is to lose.

What will be best for the right is to win. Winning comes with winning. Losing leads to more losing.

If, in retrospect, George W. Bush will have done a good thing by appointing the judges that turned back Obamacare, Republicans will be inspired to elect another Republican president and appoint more judges.

David Blue on March 31, 2012 at 5:41 PM

f the mandate is overturned, and the entire law thrown out, we will be left with;

1. Gas prices.
2. Stagnant housing values.
3. Unemployment levels too-high-to-hide.
4. Hey, look how much time/effort/energy team O wasted on a law so bad, it was tossed even before it was fully implemented.
5. Continual assault on our freedoms.
6. Completely misguided energy policies.

massrighty on March 31, 2012 at 5:17 PM
-
Add
7. An out of control TSA.
8. Inflation.
9. Taxes.
10. Illegal immigration.
11. A few angry religious folks.

diogenes on March 31, 2012 at 5:41 PM

So now we’re taking the first guy to address John Kerry as “Mr. President” seriously? Might as well dedicate a post to the musings of Steve Schmidt.

wolfsDad on March 31, 2012 at 5:41 PM

So the ’62 Mets of campaign management weighs in on how to turn a defeat into a victory and we’re supposed to worry?

fitzfong on March 31, 2012 at 5:42 PM

I hope that while we’re waiting to hear from SCOTUS the candidates are adjusting their campaigns for the possibility of an overturn. If Obamacare is removed from the table, they’ll be free to focus on other issues. Gas prices and energy policy are just the low hanging fruit. There’s a whole lot more they can use, from his deficits to his inability to work with Congress to his failure to support our allies, to his attacks on states rights…there really is no shortage of targets with Obama.

Dee2008 on March 31, 2012 at 5:43 PM

You can’t really spend the next four months running on a promise to repeal something which no longer exists, now can you?

Why, you sound more like Shrum than Shrum does. Is Obamacare the only issue facing America? I think there are some money issues to deal with…yes, I’m sure I’ve heard that.

BobMbx on March 31, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Key West Reader on March 31, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Hey Key West,

Fl girl here too. (Marathon lover myself)

I only mentioned “gay” as it was mentioned as always. My point was, I don’t give a damn. I am ashamed that gays or whoever vote in percentages based on BS.

When Americans (especially women) wake up and think about how much they’ll enjoy going to some place akin to the DMV for their pre-natal and annual check ups perhaps the message will get through. Can you just IMAGINE a man going to the DMV for a prostrate exam?

No to Obama and No to Obamacare. They both suck.

I am a woman. Preach on. Ask someone on MEDICAID who has had private insurance to compare. I got a surgery coming in the next 3-5 years. I will leave FL and go in-network to find the best. Gov health plan? Good luck.

How many people here are on Medicare? Hello HA peeps? Can you find any docs you havent established a relationship with that will take you? If so, how long do you wait? Do they speak your language? Heh.

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

Oh please, this runs up there with the whole idea of wanting Obama to be reelected because it’ll motivate the Tea Party to grow even further, show everyone just how badly he can destroy the economy, and put an end to the whole “Bush’s fault” excuse. Let’s just say what that really is – dumb.

You don’t think showing the country that the Dems tried to push through an illegal law is worth doing? You don’t think there’s something to be gained by destroying this monstrosity which has only been shown to be more and more expensive and destructive before it even gets into full swing? You worry about the Republicans have nothing to run against, well just what does Obama have to run for? If Romney can’t run on something he’d do besides dismantle Obama’s legislation then maybe he does deserve to lose. I bet you that if Obamacare is thrown out it’ll be by a slim margin, considering the oral arguments that made that sound like a no-brainer do you think maybe some people will wonder why it’s so close a decision? What about putting the fear that Obama will make it a landslide decision if he manages to get more justices in the Supreme Court.

But fine, you want some other “achievements” of Obama to be our focus? How about gas prices, you may gloss over its impact but I assure you that most Americans aren’t. How about drilling, how about the pipeline, how about opening new refineries. Heck, how about not investing our money in green companies that bomb as soon as they cash the check. What about the fear he’ll sell us out to our enemies after his ‘final’ election? What about setting back our nuclear arsenal back to the fifties? There are plenty of other avenues of attack but in the end Romney needs to talk about positives he’ll bring to the table too – we want this legislation gone, the sooner the better.

Ukiah on March 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Bob Shrum is the Democratis counterpart to Steve Schmidt. Ths candidates whose campaigns he manages hardly ever win either.

bw222 on March 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM

What’s left? Gas prices? Perhaps, I suppose, but left to stand on its own as an issue, prices at the pump begin to look like pretty thin gruel.

Jazz, we’re not just fighting Obamacare, but the ideological movement that gave birth to such a monster. So even if we are able to take it out, be it through the courts or through repeal, Progressivism is still present. Thus we run on: “Don’t ever allow the U.S. to be in a similar place where such a enslaving piece of legislation can ever be advanced!” That means continual pushes at the state and local level, it means governorships, it means attorney generals, it means turning the ship around. But to start with, if Obamacare is struck down, then we run on, “Don’t ever let this happen again. Vote for us and we’ll never get between you and your doctor.”

Weight of Glory on March 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Just as we are afraid of Barry getting another 4 years to appoint more Supreme Court Justices the like of Ginsburg. Kagan, Breyers, Sotomayor, the lefties are afraid of appointment of conservatives by a Republican president and maintain the balance of power to a 6-3. The future and direction of the Supreme Court will be an issue in 2012 no matter what happen to the ObamaCare ruling.

galtani on March 31, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Realclearpoltics has this quote from Dingy:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID: The question is, ‘Do I think it will damage the Democrats if the law is overturned?’ You know, you folks read stuff more than I do. There’s a significant school of thought that the administration is — puts them in a better position for the election if it’s turned down. Now, I think it will be upheld but I don’t know but you can read all that stuff as well as I can. Again, I think you’re speculating, I don’t know.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/27/reid_obamacare_being_overturned_puts_admin_in_better_position_for_the_election.html

So the talking points are out. The dems see Obamunistcare being tossed and now they are frantically trying to do damage control.

There are numerous pieces out on the web now that read almost verbatim for what Dingy said.

dogsoldier on March 31, 2012 at 5:50 PM

You have a strange idea of what would constitute a Tea Party Supreme Court. Actually downright weird.

RasThavas on March 31, 2012 at 5:51 PM

wonder what I said..my comment eaten again.

Ahh..was to my Massrighty dude.

Who knows, lately an yword goes into moderation. Asinine.

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Just as we are afraid of Barry getting another 4 years to appoint more Supreme Court Justices the like of Ginsburg. Kagan, Breyers, Sotomayor, the lefties are afraid of appointment of conservatives by a Republican president and maintain the balance of power to a 6-3. The future and direction of the Supreme Court will be an issue in 2012 no matter what happen to the ObamaCare ruling.

galtani on March 31, 2012 at 5:48 PM

It’s better if it’s an issue because Republicans are energized and excited due to victory than if Republicans are demoralized due to defeat and the loss of freedom.

David Blue on March 31, 2012 at 5:53 PM

It is a mistake to assert that if SCOTUS throws out either the mandate or all of the PPACA, health care goes away as an issue. Of course it does not; our health care system is in many ways disfunctional, and still needs attention, sooner rather than later.

Shrum won’t say it, but the only thing the left will have to offer on the health care front after the demise of Obamacare is single-payer. They know it, but won’t talk about it now because single-payer is even more unpopular than Obamacare. They will wait until the system deteriorates further, doing their best to hasten and abet the process, blaming the Republicans all the way. Ironically, a smartly-crafted single-payer system has a better chance of standing up to a Constitutional challenge than Obamacare does, and could get through after 2016 if the Democrats have their way.

This is where the Republicans, and Romney, have an opening. The right must offer concrete and far-reaching free market reforms of our health care system almost immediately after Obamacare is struck down. The right must reform health care on its terms while holding up the prospect of single-payer as the undesired result if these reforms are not implemented. We cannot punt on this issue; there is no returning to status quo. If we do not reform the health care system satisfactorily while abiding by free market principles, single-payer will be the inevitable result.

Mr. Arkadin on March 31, 2012 at 5:53 PM

What’s left?!?!

a freakin’ Kenyan whose stalwart partnership with Dr Pepper has divided the country, produced 3,000,000 lost jobs, and inflated the dollar to Hindenburg proportions. You can have a house or a gallon of milk.

so…nothing Jazz.

DHChron on March 31, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Is it a good sign that people are already trying to spin an overturning of Obamacare as a victory for Obama?

*magic 8-ball says*

“All signs point to ‘yes’!”

Yakko77 on March 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Such a decision by the court could, at least in theory, take one of the biggest bullets out of the GOP chamber in the final stretch of the race. posted at 5:00 pm on March 31, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

So, let’s say Obama decided to allow Communist China to establish military bases in Maryland, Virginia, Texas, and New York, and the Supreme Court strikes it down. Then your logic is that it’s then OK to vote for Obama?

So the fact that it’s a horrible idea and unconstitutional is better for Obama than just that it’s a horrible idea? Wow!

jaime on March 31, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Bob Shrum, did you say Bob Shrum? Oh, that was close. I thought you were quoting someone with a record better than 0 and eleventy-seven!

C’mon Jazz, at least quote someone who matters like Jimmah Cottah

GrayDog on March 31, 2012 at 5:56 PM

f the mandate is overturned, and the entire law thrown out, we will be left with;

1. Gas prices.
2. Stagnant housing values.
3. Unemployment levels too-high-to-hide.
4. Hey, look how much time/effort/energy team O wasted on a law so bad, it was tossed even before it was fully implemented.
5. Continual assault on our freedoms.
6. Completely misguided energy policies.

massrighty on March 31, 2012 at 5:17 PM

My second attempt. Love ya Mass but #5.

The majority of Americans have no idea. They trust the media. Obviously, I don’t have to explain. After a long day of work and the kids, sports, homework, shower, dinner…maybe they turn on a “trusted” news network. That is all. Ask a neighbor or co-worker about the Fast & the Furious, ect.. bet they won’t know.

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Let’s cut through all the lies and get something straight here. ObamaCare is not “The Affordable Health Care Act”. It is an assassination attempt on the United States Constitution by a mentally sick man who wants to murder it. What Booth was to Lincoln, Obama wants to be to America’s Constitution.

VorDaj on March 31, 2012 at 5:57 PM

For those not familiar, Shrum is a long time Democratic operative who worked for Al Gore and John Kerry on their presidential bids, along with many, many others other losers.

fify

besser tot als rot on March 31, 2012 at 5:58 PM

He also can’t resist the urge to denigrate the members of the court who are generally perceived as being more conservative, calling them “Injustices” and “Tea Party justices” and “politically infected” members.

Yes, those evil conservative justices are so politically infected. But not the libs like Elena Kagan, Obama’s former Solicitor General who helped devise strategy for getting Obamacare passed, but didn’t see fit to recuse herself from sitting on the case, and acted as the administration’s cheerleader and moot court advisor in oral arguments when the administration’s hapless lead counsel stuttered and floundered. Nothing political about Kagan’s positions, eh Shrum? Can’t get much more objective and unbiased than that, right chump?

AZCoyote on March 31, 2012 at 5:58 PM

There are a number of briefs on a number of points all from cases in the states where attorney’s general need to know how to proceed.
It isn’t totally the individual mandate, that might not be constitutional. Another big element is telling states to respond to the need for coverage from the individual mandate with standards from the federal government telling them to insure more people with Medicaid. The precedent was that states got to choose what they could afford, with some hints from the feds, over how many people. Because the states were paying for it. Now, I guess it starts out that they get help. But then they can’t afford to cover all the medicaid?

There are mandates and mandates. Some mandates are telling you you have to have coverage, but the average person, not a lawyer thinks that telling you you have to have “x” in your policy is a mandate.

We should seperate the two, because that is a dictate. I like it defined that way because the Secratary Shall, is a dictate. In your state some bureaucracy makes some of these dictates, a lot of them you asked for, but the states right now are not all the same, some states already do some of the dictates, others don’t.

You see if the mandate for coverage were that you have a catastrophic insurance plan, whatever your state defines as that, a lot of people might have shrugged their shoulders, but when the Secratary is sitting there spewing regulations and there is no checks or balance on what she does…a lot of people don’t know what to think. And of course, she won’t tell us what she is going to say until she is good and ready.

Exception makes bad law, this idea that a Secretary Shall, also means that anyone who is president, who picks a Secretary of Health can have her say anything they want to. Did the dems think there would never be a Republican president who might say:
All health plans will be health savings plans, Ainsi Soit il.

The power all in a Secretary is a question for the Supreme Court, exactly how much power, and HOW specific? I am not sure they will get to it. It shows what kind of bad law the Pelosi House put into the Horrible Care and Horrendous Affordability act.

Fleuries on March 31, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Jazz, if (hoping like HELL) SCOTUS strikes down the mandates, any nominee still have plenty of firepower left to aim at the President and his Party.

- Gas Prices
- Domestic Drilling
- Unemployment over 8%
- Silence on F&F
- Budget, Deficit, Budget.

The article makes it sound like out of the last 4 years, O-Care is the *only* misstep he’s made.

In fact, that should be the bellwether right there. Whomever the GOP nominee is, if he can’t address these issues and strip it bare for everyone to see, without the poo-covered glasses the MSM and DNC (redundant I know) are shelling out, then dammit we *do* deserve to lose, and we will.

Romney may not be William F Buckley, but he doesn’t have to be…he just has to show he’s got a clue more so than the President.

BlaxPac on March 31, 2012 at 5:59 PM

. Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

Funny stuff!

So the voters will vote i down and the left will judge shop to have the will of the people overturned!,

Why are conservatives so damned stupid? Play by the rules set by th left, u idiots!

rickyricardo on March 31, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

Yep, we citizens should yearn to become subjects. That’s the ticket…The Supreme Court doesn’t exist to “punt”, that’s Congress’s job…

Gohawgs on March 31, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Shrum has never been successful in a national election. He has essentitally ‘gotten it wrong’ every – single – time. Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. I do thing if it is upheld, it will be an electoral bloodbath for the Demtards – worse than 2010.

mouell on March 31, 2012 at 6:02 PM

WAIT…

Forget for a moment about the argument if defeat for 0bama means 0bama wins…

What is this
“Tea Party Supreme Court”
of which you speak? Did I fall asleep and wake up in a not quite parallel, saner universe?

LegendHasIt on March 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Will a Tea Party Supreme Court guarantee Obama a second term?
The court’s conservative wing appears ready to engage in some despicable judicial activism on ObamaCare. Politically, at least, the justices are doing Obama a favor
====================================

RightWing Judicial Activism………YOU have got to be kidding,
with the likes of Alan Kagan,a well documented Social Justice
Crusader,I don’y know whether to laugh or curse said stupid,idiot
comment!!

canopfor on March 31, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Let’s cut through all

Lets. Many underestimate BHO and his machine. The R’s better get ready. Ya, I know it’s hard with our candidates but we better orangnize and focus. Otherwise, 4 more years of this. Ponder.
I see we have some here that will sit out. Not me.
I am disgusted with not only D’s but R’s. Get the eff up people.

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 6:05 PM

My second attempt. Love ya Mass but #5.

The majority of Americans have no idea. They trust the media. Obviously, I don’t have to explain. After a long day of work and the kids, sports, homework, shower, dinner…maybe they turn on a “trusted” news network. That is all. Ask a neighbor or co-worker about the Fast & the Furious, ect.. bet they won’t know.

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Absolute truth. After a hard day, it’s a tough sell, outside of an arena like this one, to get anyone to talk shop about stuff that might actually be more important than some of the things with more immediate impact (like gas prices, for example.)

I put it on the list as part of a cumulative strategy. Like the battle scene in Pirates of the Caribbean, where they load the guns with buckshot and silverware; we should hit them with everything we have.

massrighty on March 31, 2012 at 6:05 PM

4. Hey, look how much time/effort/energy team O wasted on a law so bad, it was tossed even before it was fully implemented.

To demoralize lefties, ADD time/effort/energy/political capital. Tie that to “he could have passed cap and trade” or “he could have passed a second stimulus” . . . I’m still surprised Reid and Pelosi didn’t write cap and tax into the PPACA to use as the funding mechanism . . .

To energize the rest of voters, ADD money/time/effort/energy. Tie that to the debt, deficit, ownership by Chinese, etc. How much has been spent to implement Obamacare? Why didn’t Obama do the right thing and put a moratorium on further implementation until the cases against it wended their way through the Court system? That would have been responsible (something we know is like taking arsenic to the left).

Anyway, if this Trayvon thing keeps firing up, Obama will go down as more and more voters tie him to the divisiveness of Sharpton and Jackson. One of the worst downturns in O’s popularity was when he opined on the Cambridge police/Gates case. We are seeing it again now as Obama’s 50% favorable 2 weeks ago on gallup turned into 50% unfavorable today. It’s not just gas prices — you can’t demonize a whole race that is still the slim majority but a bigger majority of the voters and expect that majority will say “please sir, may I have some more”.

Finally, like every other leader with supreme delusions of grandeur, the madness of King Barack is finally heading toward its sublime climax of hubris meets narcissism.

To paraphrase Peggy Noonan, will there be rending of garments the day after the election if Obama is defeated? No, I don’t think so, No.

Greyledge Gal on March 31, 2012 at 6:06 PM

That picture of bho laughing his fool head off just make me want to puke! That anti-American knows full well that is going on and doesn’t give a flying flit for our Republic. Just see to it that bho gets re-elected and by golly the world will heal!/

BTW, I don’t care for bho or his dandy wife one bit! Can we get rid of him in Nov.?
L

letget on March 31, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Americans in the grey zone of doubt about health reform, confused by the fog of lies about the bill, would move on and vote, as they mostly would anyway…

Lies like these?

– if you like your current policy, you can keep your current policy;
– Obamacare won’t add to the deficit;
– Obamacare will reduce health care costs;
– Obamacare will cost less than a trillion dollars to implement;
– Taxpayers won’t be subsidizing health care for illegal aliens under Obamacare;
– Obamacare won’t have death panels (i.e. unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats deciding what types of medical treatments are too “inefficient” to be provided for some patients);
– Obamacare won’t trample on any Americans’ religious liberties.

Yep, Shrum, all those statements about Obamacare turned out to be blatant lies. But they were lies told by Obama and the other Democrats who shoved this monstrous POS down our throats. And if you think that Americans are not going to remember that when they go to the polls in November, you’re delusional.

AZCoyote on March 31, 2012 at 6:08 PM

No.

profitsbeard on March 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM

f*ck! lefties are so annoying. They shove this crap through congress against the will of the people, spend two years sneering at legitimate constitutional gripes, and when the court hands them their collective azzes they predict roses and cherries for the chosen One.

You might have to give this idea lip service Jazz, but you don’t have to award it merit.

DHChron on March 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Comparing Obama’s Administration/California to a Third-World Banana Republic is insulting to Banana Republics everywhere: City of Los Angeles workers steal gas from pumps; Senator Feinstein sacrifices Central Valley to greenies;Brown wants to rush build-out of eco-damaging bullet train.

Mutnodjmet on March 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM

f the mandate is overturned, and the entire law thrown out, we will be left with;

1. Gas prices.
2. Stagnant housing values.
3. Unemployment levels too-high-to-hide.
4. Hey, look how much time/effort/energy team O wasted on a law so bad, it was tossed even before it was fully implemented.
5. Continual assault on our freedoms.
6. Completely misguided energy policies.

massrighty on March 31, 2012 at 5:17 PM

You forgot $1.5 Trillion deficits and a $15.5 Trillion debt.

Theophile on March 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Should we have actually been rooting for the Supreme Court to :::gulp::: uphold the individual mandate and the whole bill so that the case can be decided at the ballot box and not in a court room?

Of course not. Little is certain in politics.

Deciding this at the ballot box once and for all might take us to 2014 because that is how long it might take to maybe get a supermajority in the Senate. Without that all we will be able to do will be block and defund. Without that we will not be able to replace it with anything significant.

slickwillie2001 on March 31, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Gas prices affect food prices, and the inflated dollar isn’t stretching very far these days. So, yes, gas prices and Obama’s wasteful crony energy policy are indeed issues.

Having the highest corporate tax in the world has cost us jobs and skewed the economy. A case can be made that the economy would grow and jobs would increase if a convincing case can be made. (Ahem, Paul Ryan!)

Fourth, the aftermath would also engage those who would lose out if the law is swept away, especially young people no longer covered by their parents’ insurance..

I fail to see how Schrum’s argument holds here. The young are not the primary consumers of health insurance nor of health care. They think that they are invincible and don’t place the purchase of health insurance as a high-priority item.

If potential voters do not see the damaging effects of Obama’s foreign policy and the expansion of the caliphate under the guise of “the Arab Spring,” then there is little hope for our national security. Similarly, the “hot mic” revelation of Obama’s willingness to cede our military power to Russia has to give pause.

When Mitt (or the other candidates) shift the discussion beyond today’s headlines and away from the manufactured Trayvon outrage, then Obama has to be on the defensive. He simply does not have a credible record to run on.

onlineanalyst on March 31, 2012 at 6:11 PM

No.

When your signature achievement, already wildly unpopular among the citizenry, is declared ILLEGAL by the highest court in the land, it DOES NOT HELP YOUR REELECTION CHANCES.

Can we stop with this stupidity now?

Jeez, Louise. I mean, there’s spin then there’s just over-the-edge stupidity.

RedNewEnglander on March 31, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Man O man,these Lefty journOlisters are sure hateful of the Right!

Exhibit…”A to Z”!
——————-

Recall the scorn toward health reform dripping from the lips of Injustice Antonin Scalia.

Or think of the tight-lipped Clarence Thomas, who could send a mannequin to sit in his place at the court’s oral arguments for all the difference his brooding presence makes.

satire replaced stare decisis in a slightly altered version of the Red Queen’s jurisprudence in Alice in Wonderland

A politically infected court could produce a politically unexpected result, strengthening Obama and weakening Romney and the Republicans.
================

Bottom Line:
————-

You stupid Carnival Barking,Flat Earth Luddites,that are Bitterly
Clinging to Bible and Guns,need to shut the Hell Up,and stop ruin
ing our Utopian version of our John Edwards other America!!(snark)

canopfor on March 31, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Obama- the Solyndra of presidents.

profitsbeard on March 31, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Naw, if the throw out the whole thing, the Repubs could always work inthe debt problem.

There are enough real things wrong in this country to work on, the fourth and fifth columns, the fiat currency, the cronyism, etc.

Not-a-Marxist on March 31, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Regardless, Romney is what he is: a Moderate Republican (at best). And, we all know how well they’ve done at the ballot box the last few election cycles.

The shrieking may now commence.

trigon on March 31, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Law upheld – BAD for Republicans!
Law dismissed – BAD for Republicans!

If Obama walked out on to the White House lawn and proceeded to punch a kitten in the face, that would also be bad for Republicans.

mudskipper on March 31, 2012 at 5:12 PM

This is how the “Treason Media” spin every political topic.

Rio Linda Refugee on March 31, 2012 at 6:16 PM

bazil9 on March 31, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Very true. The media has gone from the days of Walter Cronkite, a liberal who at least faked at being unbiased and objective, to today’s media which openly supports the Democratic Party and will do anything in its power to reelect Barack Obama.

In analyzing one of its polls which showed that most Americans believe the media is biased, Gallup said those most likely to believe the media are untra-liberals and the poorly educated.

bw222 on March 31, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Fleuries on March 31, 2012 at 5:59 PM

YES! I was telling my husband the other night that most people wouldn’t have objected to a mandate that said “buy a catastrophic healthcare plan”.

It is the o-v-e-r-r-e-a-c-h to which people object.

And in answer to your question about another Republican President: In 2008, the left (and you can find it in blogs, articles and comments from that time across the internet) believed that the Republican Party would go the way of the Whigs and would never be in power again. With Obama, rainbows, Skittles, unicorns, and victims on their side, how could it?

Greyledge Gal on March 31, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Yes, if Obamacare is overturned, it would motivate the Democrat base to work towards achieving the goal of creating a Supreme Court that consists of 9 ugly, childless lesbians, because 3 just isn’t nearly enough.

And if the Supreme Court justices really did take a private vote on Obamacare, I find it really hard to believe that Kagan and the wise Latina would not report the results of this vote to Obama long before the official announcement in June.

ardenenoch on March 31, 2012 at 6:17 PM

DHChron on March 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Maybe so, DHChron but it’s up to US to make sure that this mistake is not repeated.

That’s why i repeat: Frankly the race isn’t about electing Romney (if he does get the nod), its about reversing 4 years of Progressive folly that we’ve been saddled with.

Those that stay home, that is *not* an option.

It was done in 96, we got another 4 years of Clinton, in 08 we got Obama.

Hell, I’m looking back at Clinton with some fondness some days. He might have been a hack, and most definitely he was a serial liar and about as courteous with women as a broken bicycle seat on a rocky hill, but he was harmless compared to the crowd we got in office now.

A better analogy? The only difference between this guy and Hillary is that Obama’s boob is named Biden.

BlaxPac on March 31, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3