Rand Paul: Let’s face it, it’s going to be difficult to repeal ObamaCare at this point

posted at 3:21 pm on April 28, 2014 by Allahpundit

Interestingly, it’s Cathy McMorris-Rodgers’s comments about “reforming” rather than repealing the O-Care exchanges that drew most of the blog chatter this weekend, not Rand’s equally eyebrow-raising remarks at Harvard on Friday. Is that because McMorris-Rodgers is guilty of a double heresy, having forecast a new amnesty push this summer too? Or is it because Paul’s conservative bona fides are still in good standing whereas no one trusts the House leadership on anything anymore, starting with ObamaCare? Whatever the reason, McMorris-Rodgers issued a statement this morning aimed at the gullible optimists among us insisting that she’s on Team Repeal all the way. Whew.

What about Rand, though? I can’t find video or a transcript of what he said in Cambridge; National Review says that he reiterated his strong opposition to ObamaCare but was fatalistic about repealing it — in the near-term at least. The Hill’s account makes it sound like his time horizon was longer than that, though:

“I think it’s going to be difficult to turn the clock back. People get assumed and accustomed to receiving things, particularly things that they get for free,” he told a crowd of students at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on Friday…

“I think one of the practical things you might be able to do, and I think the public at large might accept this, is to make ObamaCare voluntary. You make it voluntary, basically you get rid of the coercion,” he said, presumably by eliminating the penalty those without insurance are required to pay, known as the individual mandate.

He said he may keep some parts of the law, like the subsidies to help poor Americans afford insurance, or the Medicaid expansion — two of ObamaCare’s more popular provisions but potentially its more expensive.

“Does that get rid of the subsidies? Not necessarily, or the Medicaid. But I think also we’re going to find out we can’t afford to have everybody on Medicaid, we can’t afford to have everybody on subsidized insurance,” Paul said.

Alternate headline: “Ted Cruz’s ad team pulls all-nighter” — which would be ironic, since Paul’s logic here about the difficulty of weaning people off subsidies once they’ve begun is the same as Cruz’s was back in October in pushing the “defund” effort (which Paul tepidly supported). All Rand’s saying, really, is that repeal becomes much harder once a program’s in place and people have come to rely on it. Cruz couldn’t agree more, I assume, which is not to say he won’t have lots of fun punishing Paul for his “defeatism” in the primaries.

In a sense, all he’s giving you here is the ObamaCare version of his straight talk on abortion with David Axelrod. America’s not going to change its abortion laws, he said, because there isn’t enough consensus to do so. There may be enough consensus to draw a firm legal line at third-trimester abortions but there certainly isn’t a consensus for an all-out ban like social cons want. The trick for voters is deciding how much of that statement is descriptive and how much is prescriptive. How much political capital would President Paul devote to shaping a consensus on abortion? How much would he devote to shaping a consensus on ObamaCare’s repeal? The first requirement of a tea-party champion is that he resist establishment conventional wisdom and fight for his principles, even if he’s all but guaranteed to lose. It was Cruz’s insight that he could win politically that way by leading on “defund” even though he was destined to lose on the merits. I don’t know why, frankly, Paul would leave himself open to attacks from Cruz on that point by taking these quasi-fatalistic views about hot-button conservative issues. Presumably it’s because his top priority is showing the establishment that he can play nice, and hinting that he wouldn’t rock the boat terribly much on abortion and, especially, ObamaCare is one way to do that. But he’s got to get through the primaries first. Why make things easier on Cruz?

As for the merits, I don’t think repealing the mandate would do much to weaken the overall law at this point. It would be a moral victory insofar as it jettisoned the most overtly coercive element of O-Care, the one that got away at the Supreme Court two years ago, but yanking it out of the ObamaCare jenga tower now wouldn’t topple the whole structure. That might have happened if the Court had struck it down before the exchanges launched; without the mandate in place scaring twentysomethings into buying insurance this year, the risk pools might have been overloaded with the old and sick, premiums might have shot up in 2015, and suddenly we’re in death-spiral country. As it is, they’ve got somewhere between six million and eight million paying customers enrolled, roughly 28 percent of whom are “young invincibles.” That’s well short of their target of 39 percent last year but enough that premiums aren’t expected to skyrocket next year to make up for missing revenue. But even if the mandate had been nullified by the Supremes, that still might not have nuked O-Care; remember, for all intents and purposes, the mandate has already been repealed. It’s basically hortatory, a nudge to adults (especially young adults) to sign up but not something that’s being seriously enforced. It was the White House PR outreach to twentysomethings that did most of the work in getting them to sign up, I think, not the mandate. In which case, what’s really achieved at this point by getting rid of it?

Exit question: If we drop the mandate and keep the exchanges and the subsidies and the Medicaid expansion, as Paul envisions, then we’re basically adopting O-Care, right?


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 3 4 5 6

1. Anyone who disagrees with joana.

2. See above. That’s the only definition.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM

LOL. I haven’t read comments from the beginning, so don’t know what the argument it about.

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 5:47 PM

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 5:47 PM

I’ve been reading from the beginning and I’ve forgotten.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM

LOL. I haven’t read comments from the beginning, so don’t know what the argument it about.

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 5:47 PM

Easy darlin’
It’s all about joana instructing us to her way of thinking…

OmahaConservative on April 28, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Ah, sweet irony. Just today I got an email from Rand telling me how much he needs my money desperately to repeal ObamaCare. Sorry Rand, I pay attention to the news and you’re a sellout now too, trying to get me to send money for a cause you’re no longer fighting.

quikstrike98 on April 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Joana writes,

1) A supermajority? Republicans won’t have a supermajority any time soon. As I said, I prefer reality-based scenarios. As I said, they can keep voting Obamacare repeals. It excites part of the base.

Nothing wrong with exciting your base as long as you aren’t leading it on.

But I agree a supermajority is not likely. That still leaves the 2016 presidential campaign.

Or would you rather just deflate the base now and lose that election?

2) Oh, so it’s a problem of messaging to you? You’re fine with the policy, you just don’t like that Rand announced it? It’d be fine if he said this after the election? So much for principled stands.

A lot of politics is messaging. I don’t know where you get in your reading of Burke that politics is just policy, but it’s not true.

And I think the general approach of repeal is the right way to go.

First, it’s largely accurate. Republicans may not want to repeal every single line in Obamacare, but they want to get rid of most of it. And that’s how it should be sold to the public.

Second, you don’t want to get into rhetorical stances that will hurt your cause. Like John Kerry’s flip-flops, you don’t have to say you were for repeal before you were against it. Leave the nuanced stuff for the policy meetings.

Pincher Martin on April 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Heh! I kinda’ thought joana might be waving a red flag in front of the proverbial bull when she threw that “don’t speak to me” comment your way.

lineholder on April 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM

A Truecon is someone so pure that

1. Endorsing Collins from Maine
2. Not endorsing the statement “I wonder if they wouldn’t be better off as slaves” and
3. Submitting a bill that would block aid to Palestine

all disqualify you from their POTUS voting considerations.

Skipity on April 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM

What I asked you to do is to stop lying about the reasons I stopped posting. I mean, people can simply go back and see nobody stopped replying to my comments.

You can keep answering to my posts, I don’t care that per se. I worry about someone who rarely debates the issue -whatever it might be- and dedicates a large percentage of the posts to talk about me, personally. That’s a bit creepy and those are the posts I’d ask you to curb – that’s a decision you’ll have to make so I’ll leave it at that.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 5:44 PM

I don’t really care what you find “creepy.” If you troll a thread and make yourself the locus of debate, then people are going to refer to you by name. If you find that “creepy,” well, you probably don’t belong on the internet.

I don’t give a **** who you are, where you live, what you do for a living, what your real name is, or what your favorite color is, but if you continue to troll topics then I’m going to call you out on it.

And if you stop responding because you find that “creepy,” so be it. It’ll only make your arguments look weaker to anyone who is viewing this debate. But you don’t care, right? You’re not here to change minds. You’re just here to yell at people with the helpful veil of anonymity that is the internet.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 5:51 PM

OmahaConservative on April 28, 2014 at 5:49 PM

“Resistance is futile, you illiterates” message conveyed with heavy servings of contempt.

lineholder on April 28, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Are they as or more yucky than Socons? How about as worthless as RINOs. Wow, this name calling thing is great! Any liars or illiterates in the crowd? Let me ask joanna.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Heh! I kinda’ thought joana might be waving a red flag in front of the proverbial bull when she threw that “don’t speak to me” comment your way.

lineholder on April 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Well, since it’s so “creepy” to actually respond to someone’s posts directly and address them by their chosen online nom de plume, I could always pull a libfree and just start responding to my own posts.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Well, since it’s so “creepy” to actually respond to someone’s posts directly and address them by their chosen online nom de plume, I could always pull a libfree and just start responding to my own posts.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 5:53 PM

This is a great point. The person who posted this is a gentleman and a scholar. I like the cut of his jib. I’d like to subscribe to his newsletter. He’s probably very handsome, too.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Skipity on April 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM

That’s a rather simplistic list Skipity but you run with it.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Once again, with feeling: Why do we vote GOP? The Republicans can’t or won’t stop the Democrats from building their socialist paradise, and after each milestone the Democrats achieve, the GOP just shrugs and says they can’t do anything about it.

But I guess the GOP figures they have 2014 in the bag, so why try?

Aitch748 on April 28, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Are they as or more yucky than Socons? How about as worthless as RINOs. Wow, this name calling thing is great! Any liars or illiterates in the crowd? Let me ask joanna.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Ima trusocconwithrhinotendenciesandknowrightingskilitz.

astonerii on April 28, 2014 at 5:58 PM

We sure are seeing a lot of white flags from the Republicans the closer we get to November

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 3:52 PM

That will totally change once we finally get to the hill to die on.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM

It’s funny that Joana would consider herself an acolyte of Edmund Burke, the great 18th-century Anglo-Irish statesman, and yet she tries to reduce politics to a mere policy meeting.

Burke understood that customs and social mores and passions were an important part of politics, and he was an uncompromising defender of liberty. If alive today, he’d hardly be for reducing political rhetoric to a bunch of policy talking points.

I agree with the idea that conservatives need better policy ideas. But for those policy ideas to work, they need to be harnessed to the passions and beliefs of most conservatives. If not, then the establishment elites in the GOP will always be at cross purposes with their base, and that’s hardly an efficient way to run a political party.

Pincher Martin on April 28, 2014 at 6:00 PM

astonerii on April 28, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Ah, a man of many talents just begging to be insulted. I like that.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Rand Paul: Let’s face it, it’s going to be difficult to repeal ObamaCare at this point

What’s next?

Rand Paul: Let’s face it, it’s going to be difficult to repeal Amnesty/Rewards for tens of millions of invaders at this point?

Rand Paul: Let’s face it, it’s going to be difficult to repeal Obama’s being, in effect, President for Life at this point?

Patton would surly slap that man.

VorDaj on April 28, 2014 at 6:00 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Why do I doubt that?

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:01 PM

VorDaj on April 28, 2014 at 6:00 PM

I see Israel “donating” a chunk of their country for the pretend state of Palestine.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:02 PM

That will totally change once we finally get to the hill to die on.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM

We’ve reached that hill:

“The GOP plans to unify behind an effort to keep a 3 block stretch of highway cutting through D.C. from being renamed in honor of Al Sharpton.”

“We will not be swayed from this, in fact as a party we stand united and will fight to the death to keep this from happening” said some guy named Bonner or Boner or something like that, reported CNN.

Bishop on April 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM

“I think it’s going to be difficult to turn the clock back. People get assumed and accustomed to receiving things, particularly things that they get for free,”

He’s losing it.
What is he talking about with “getting it for free”? No, Rand. Thats the next step in the commie plan. Single payer.
ObamaCare forces people to BUY insurance whether they can afford it or not. Does he actually think people would be against getting rid of that??

Mimzey on April 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Ah, a man of many talents just begging to be insulted. I like that.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Its a rough job, but someone has to do it, or we will get illegal aliens coming here to be insulted in my place!

astonerii on April 28, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Paul and Rand are two different guys, but they’re both from the loon family

datrashman on April 28, 2014 at 6:05 PM

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 5:47 PM

I’ve been reading from the beginning and I’ve forgotten.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM

LOL, I’m still on page 1. So far joana doesn’t like tru-cons and we can’t repeal O’Crap because…(to be determined:-)

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Huh? That’s twice Palestine has come up in this thread.

Caroline Glick has a new book out. She’s advocating a one state solution. It’s quite sensible (have not bought or read it but she’s been writing about the ideas on her blog and I’ve listened to a few interviews on podcasts).

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Nothing wrong with exciting your base as long as you aren’t leading it on.

But I agree a supermajority is not likely. That still leaves the 2016 presidential campaign.

Or would you rather just deflate the base now and lose that election?

Pincher Martin on April 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Talking about a supermajority is leading on the base. Just like talking about an Obamacare repeal or “Obamacare defunding” without controlling the trifecta is leading on the base.

Telling things as they are is only deflating because the base expectations are inflated by the false promises of snake oil salesmen.

2) Oh, so it’s a problem of messaging to you? You’re fine with the policy, you just don’t like that Rand announced it? It’d be fine if he said this after the election? So much for principled stands.

A lot of politics is messaging. I don’t know where you get in your reading of Burke that politics is just policy, but it’s not true.

And I think the general approach of repeal is the right way to go.

First, it’s largely accurate. Republicans may not want to repeal every single line in Obamacare, but they want to get rid of most of it. And that’s how it should be sold to the public.

Second, you don’t want to get into rhetorical stances that will hurt your cause. Like John Kerry’s flip-flops, you don’t have to say you were for repeal before you were against it. Leave the nuanced stuff for the policy meetings.

Pincher Martin on April 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM

I agree a large part of politics is messaging. I was just checking if that was your problem with Paul’s stance.

Republicans want to get rid of most of it but that doesn’t imply they need to do it via statutory repeal.

So, we can conclude that your posts here were faux outrage. You understand a full repeal won’t happen. You understand reality is more complex and nuanced than shouting a few slogans. That a full repeal isn’t wise from a policy or politic perspective and hardly doable. So you were feigning indignation – you actually know Paul is right.

You’re wrong about the messaging anyway. Paul is just saying that a) a full statutory repeal is difficult b) that shouldn’t stop them from repealing some parts most believe to be bad (in other words, the unpopular parts like the mandate). Obviously what he won’t say is that repealing those parts will be akin to repealing Obamacare, but that’s smart messaging. Messaging wise, this makes him sound reasonable without opening him to accusations of flip-flopping – he still favors repealing Obamacare, something that seems to have escaped you. It’s also the true. It’s also what most people want to hear – here’s a guy who will keep the parts of Obamacare we like while getting rid of the others! The only people who are unhappy with this messaging are the “trucons”. Then again, that’s pretty much definitive proof that all the polls and focus groups Paul paid to test this were correct.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Time to listen to Levin:-) Hope I can still get his channel, since I’ve misplaced my decoder ring.

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 6:08 PM

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM

It seems to me that she believes that Obamacare is “popular”. I disagree but see no point in trying to discuss it with her as she seems to go off on outranged rants when others have tried.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:08 PM

It was constitutional… They wrote an amendment to make it unconstitutional in the 1860s.

astonerii on April 28, 2014 at 5:23 PM

exactly. just because something is constitutional at one point doesn’t mean it always will be nor does it mean it actually is.
scotus is not omnipotent.

dmacleo on April 28, 2014 at 6:10 PM

ObamaCare forces people to BUY insurance whether they can afford it or not. Does he actually think people would be against getting rid of that??

Mimzey on April 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM

He’s obviously talking about all the people who wouldn’t be able to afford insurance without Obamacare (people with pre-existing conditions and/or low income) and now can. He’s also talking about people who benefit on the margin: people who pay less for their health-care than they’d pay in a world without Obamacare.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Can you please stop saying that I “left” because people stop responding to my posts or whatever? Actually, I’d really appreciate if you could stop answering to my posts.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 5:32 PM

being butthurt seems to come easily to you.

dmacleo on April 28, 2014 at 6:11 PM

It seems to me that she believes that Obamacare is “popular”. I disagree but see no point in trying to discuss it with her as she seems to go off on outranged rants when others have tried.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:08 PM

I don’t believe Obamacare is popular. If you can’t figure that out by reading my posts, I’m not even going to try to explain it to you.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Then again, that’s pretty much definitive proof that all the polls and focus groups Paul paid to test this were correct.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Money well spent so that he can lose to Cruz.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 6:13 PM

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM

I will have to check it out. Who were the podcasts with?

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:13 PM

I don’t believe Obamacare is popular. If you can’t figure that out by reading my posts, I’m not even going to try to explain it to you.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 6:12 PM

You seem to never want to try to explain things, which might explain why you’re so lousy at it.

It’s just a lack of effort. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 6:14 PM

I don’t believe Obamacare is popular. If you can’t figure that out by reading my posts, I’m not even going to try to explain it to you.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 6:12 PM

You are very funny …

2) Parts of Obamacare are extremely popular so it’s wiser to repeal Obamacare without directly repealing those parts – they’ll eventually die on their own – otherwise you’re only repealing Obamacare to deal with Obamacare 2.0 a couple of years later.

Seems easy to understand for me.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 5:18 PM

… and completely incoherent.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Abraham Lincoln got elected by saying he would limit the expansion of slavery. He never said he would ban it. However, Lincoln knew that would is essence cripple slave states politically, and yet make himself look moderate to those in the north who did want to be seen as, “crazy,” abolitionist.

So Lincoln if he wanted to ban slavery he would need the majority in the north to come to that opinion on their own. He got that desire thanks to the south.

The fact is there are several things in ObamaCare that a majority of voters want, but a lot stuff they don’t want. What is a better political position to take…I will give what you want and take away what you don’t want, in other words reform (a nice safe moderate word), or I can repeal the whole thing?

Obviously the “moderate” view wins a majority, but if Paul (or others who take this strategy) can make the moderate view so dangerous to Democrats, and thus enrage them and give the impression that ObamaCare will die a slow rather than fast death, it may force the Democrat party to over react. Thus the modern Democrat party will fall into the same fait their southern brethren did so many years ago.

Paul wants no penalty, no force to get insurance with ObamaCare… Does that not bring ObamaCare down by itself?

Same goes for other government programs…attack what is weak, like funding the IRS and EPA…and avoid what is strong.

William Eaton on April 28, 2014 at 6:18 PM

I will have to check it out. Who were the podcasts with?

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Everyone. She has some of them posted on her website. Mark Levin was one. Milt Rosenberg. A few others.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Sounds like the thought of having willing people buy and pay for their own insurance or as part of their work benefits is just too much to consider.

The useless Republicans are making ready to surrender once again.

RJL on April 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Now you’ve done it.

Bishop on April 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Not Obamacare 2.0! It’s even stronger than the original! It’s got laser eyes, and laser fingers! Laser everything, actually!

Is it like Skynet? Will it self-actualize during the singularity?

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Since most people are paying higher premiums and bigger deductibles for less insurance, it’s hard for me to believe it’s popular with anyone other than those getting subsidies. And I have to believe that those very same high premium/deductions will put employers in the position of paying the fine rather than to continue carrying policies for their employees. Geez, when you’ve lost Jeffery Immelt it is hard for me to see why there is a Republican retreat. I have to assume it’s a power grab.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Bishop on April 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Opportunity knocks.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Everyone hates it. But we’re just gonna keep it anyway. Makes sense.

Jack_Burton on April 28, 2014 at 6:21 PM

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM

It seems to me that she believes that Obamacare is “popular”. I disagree but see no point in trying to discuss it with her as she seems to go off on outranged rants when others have tried.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:08 PM

I would disagree that whether Obamacare is popular or not isn’t the point. It’s Unconstituional for one and Roberts legislated from the bench, which he clearly has no authority to do. Mandating that any American must buy something is dictorial.

Had the Health Care Companies not gotten in bed with this evil, it would have went nowhere to begin with.

The main problem is that we have a one Party system; Executive, Judicial & Legislative. One Branch lies and the other two swear to it.

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Rand Paul is right for the short term. But don’t stop trying.

This monster needs to be repealed not only for the visible, grotesque parts but because of all the little things in the package. They squeaked in so many small things that together they’re worse than the obvious.

TfromV on April 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

He’s obviously talking about all the people who wouldn’t be able to afford insurance without Obamacare (people with pre-existing conditions and/or low income) and now can. He’s also talking about people who benefit on the margin: people who pay less for their health-care than they’d pay in a world without Obamacare.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 6:11 PM

They still can’t afford it. I wonder how many of those people are young people who simply don’t want to spend their money on medical insurance? They are the ones who may feel forced to spend limited funds on crap insurance with high deductibles.
How could anyone with a functioning brain be for being forced to buy junk they don’t want nor have a use for?

Mimzey on April 28, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:21 PM

The entire thing is ridiculous. Starting with “read the bill to know what’s in it”. Karl Denninger has the best strategy towards healthcare that I’ve seen but none of the politicians will take notice.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:24 PM

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Okay, I’ll look into it.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:24 PM

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Roberts made a bet on the american people. Sadly he lost.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:25 PM

I have to assume that we will be stuck with most of Obamacare until Obama leaves office. He will veto everything without peril.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Joana writes,

Talking about a supermajority is leading on the base. Just like talking about an Obamacare repeal or “Obamacare defunding” without controlling the trifecta is leading on the base.

I said Obamacare repeal was possible before 2017 with a supermajority. I later agreed with you that it’s unlikely to happen. But I never said anything about promising the base – or even talking up the possibility of a supermajority.

And you complain about the reading comprehension of others.

Telling things as they are is only deflating because the base expectations are inflated by the false promises of snake oil salesmen.

No, they’re not. You might believe yourself to come from the Land of Objective Truth, but if you have that belief then you are as deluded as anyone here.

Perhaps when you’re rereading Burke, you might rediscover that the Great Sage doesn’t believe in the hyper-rationality of political actors. Yet you, a Burkean acolyte, believe you have acquired that correct balance of wisdom and objectivity in how our society should be built. Isn’t it ironic then that you’ve come to resemble those eighteenth-century Jacobins that Burke took on.

Pincher Martin on April 28, 2014 at 6:27 PM

But I guess the GOP figures they have 2014 in the bag, so why try?

Aitch748 on April 28, 2014 at 5:58 PM

That didn’t work too well for Romney tho:-)

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 6:27 PM

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Another name I will need to check out. I always enjoy when The Won says, in front of God and everyone, that he took ideas from Republicans.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:28 PM

I mis-spoke slightly. KD has a good analysis of what the fiscal problem with the medical system is. He does not have a good political strategy to get it fixed though … or it would be fixed by now.

His site is market-ticker.org

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Everyone hates it. But we’re just gonna keep it anyway. Makes sense.

Jack_Burton on April 28, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Isn’t it odd that the repubs don’t seem to be pointing any of the problems out now, nor pointing to the future collapse of financing it? Just like they don’t seem to be pointing out the problems with amnesty for all types of criminal aliens, and what that will do to this country.
It’s almost like they’re on the same side and have the same values as the far left loons. Same thing as the silence of this administrations collapsing of the dollar with a string of years of trillion+ deficits. Not.A.Word.
Why do you suppose that is?

Mimzey on April 28, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Okay. Now I’m done with Paul. Defeatist GOP elitist.

And Joanna is a GOP shill. Ignore.

hawkdriver on April 28, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Joana writes,

So, we can conclude that your posts here were faux outrage. You understand a full repeal won’t happen. You understand reality is more complex and nuanced than shouting a few slogans. That a full repeal isn’t wise from a policy or politic perspective and hardly doable. So you were feigning indignation – you actually know Paul is right.

I’m for full repeal of Obamacare. What eventually happens to every strand of Obamacare once it gets back into those policy meetings is not my concern. That kind of discussion is too contingent on a hundred different questions for which neither you nor I have the answer for. I’m still for full repeal as it stands today. I believe that the little that’s good about Obamacare is not separable from the great deal that’s bad about Obamacare, and so the best way to address serious health care reform is to fully repeal Obamacare and push additional health care reforms in one legislative action.

You’re wrong about the messaging anyway. Paul is just saying that a) a full statutory repeal is difficult b) that shouldn’t stop them from repealing some parts most believe to be bad (in other words, the unpopular parts like the mandate). Obviously what he won’t say is that repealing those parts will be akin to repealing Obamacare, but that’s smart messaging. Messaging wise, this makes him sound reasonable without opening him to accusations of flip-flopping – he still favors repealing Obamacare, something that seems to have escaped you.

It didn’t escape me. He was still for repealing Obamacare before he was against it.

If Paul wants a middle position, he’s perfectly capable of saying he’s for repealing Obamacare, but thinks Republicans need to quickly address some of the health care reforms that the Democrats tried and failed to address with Obamacare.

That messaging would work much better, and it’s also likely to be more accurate.

Pincher Martin on April 28, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Wow, that escalated quickly.

It’s like Paul wasn’t serious about running at all or something.

He’s been going the full McCain for the past two weeks.

HitNRun on April 28, 2014 at 6:45 PM

HitNRun on April 28, 2014 at 6:45 PM

I don’t think full out Pander Bear is the best policy for anyone.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 6:49 PM

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Roberts made a bet on the american people. Sadly he lost.

gh on April 28, 2014 at 6:25 PM

I remember his remarks. However, his authority was to decide whether Obamacare was Constitutional or not. He did not do that.
He changed the Obamacare law, which was Unconstitutional for him to do, and then ruled THAT was Constitutional.

Then if that wasn’t enough, he tried to blame it on the American Voter.

Term Limits or Impeachment for any Judge, including the SCOTUS when they don’t uphold the Constitution.

P.S. Had the Republican Senators voted with Cruz to NOT FUND Obamacare, Roberts may have won:-) Sadly, they voted with Reid & the Dems, to advance Obama’s agenda.

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Perhaps when you’re rereading Burke, you might rediscover that the Great Sage doesn’t believe in the hyper-rationality of political actors. Yet you, a Burkean acolyte, believe you have acquired that correct balance of wisdom and objectivity in how our society should be built. Isn’t it ironic then that you’ve come to resemble those eighteenth-century Jacobins that Burke took on.

Pincher Martin on April 28, 2014 at 6:27 PM

You’re deeply confused about Burke’s views.

In a way, Burke didn’t believe in rationalism in politics, to borrow Oakeshott’s expression. He didn’t believe politics -the science of constructing a Commonwealth, as he’d put it- could lend itself to schematic, theoretical, explanations. He was cutely aware of the danger of unintended consequences and the immense complexity of human life and society. However, he was also aware of the dangers of idealism and passions in politics. Burke was a pragmatist. He knew politics was the terrain of possible, the domain of the concrete over the abstract. The rationalism that scared Burke wasn’t the tacticism of parliamentary politics – he was an expert practitioner of that craft(
All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.
) – rather the one based on principles, logic and other abstract principles. If there’s something that defines Burke is that the practical, the circumstances, trumps the principles.

I have no idea why do you think I “Believe to have acquired that correct balance of wisdom and objectivity in how our society should be built”. I assure you, I don’t have the faintest of the clues on how our society should be built and frankly I don’t care. I’m not a social engineer. I’m not even sure if I believe there’s such a thing like society – here I disagree with Burke to some extent.

I’m not claiming for hyper-rational political actors when it comes to defining policy. Au contraire, I’m defending pragmatic political actors who are able to contain the former type.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 6:55 PM

We sure are seeing a lot of white flags from the Republicans the closer we get to November

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 3:52 PM

They waited too long last time and almost won the election (saved at the last minute by Biggie Seawalls hugging Obama).

They don’t want to take that chance again.

kcewa on April 28, 2014 at 6:56 PM

And Joanna is a GOP shill. Ignore.

hawkdriver

Shill or moby? Not that there’s any difference these days, lol.

xblade on April 28, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Fact: no politician is going to tell the millions of people with pre-existing conditions that he’ll be voting for them to lose their health insurance. Nobody wants to be attacked with ads featuring those people saying they now simply can’t get health insurance because insurers refuse to sell them policies. That’s much more devastating than the ads with people saying they werent’ able to keep their plan, are paying (much) more or couldn’t keep their doctor. It is what it is.

DOes that mean Obamacare can’t be repealed? No. It just means Obamacare must be repealed intelligently, not through a full statutory repeal.

TruCons have two options: either they support politicians who tell them things as they are or they keep supporting politicians who will lead them on by lying just to disappoint them once they are elected.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 7:03 PM

And Joanna is a GOP shill. Ignore.

hawkdriver

Shill or moby? Not that there’s any difference these days, lol.

xblade on April 28, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Well, we know she’s not a Tru-Con!!

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Some poeple are fighters. Some people are wimps. I’m glad we’re finding out which one Rand Paul is now and not later.

K. Hobbit on April 28, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Joana writes,

…rather the one based on principles, logic and other abstract principles. If there’s something that defines Burke is that the practical, the circumstances, trumps the principles.

Like in the case of Warren Hastings ? A man Burke pursued with all the subtlety of Inspector Javert?

Burke was not a pragmatist in the sense that most people think of the term today. He believed in liberty – he just didn’t think that it flowed from rationality or ideas or a Constitution. Instead, freedom was created, granted, derived only within the customs of a people’s culture and history.

Burke was not opposed to passions so long as they were funneled through traditional modes of expression. His dislike of the passions unleashed in the French Revolution were because he felt that they no longer had any constraints.

Pincher Martin on April 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Fact: no politician is going to tell the millions of people with pre-existing conditions that he’ll be voting for them to lose their health insurance.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Of course not. They’re going to lie.

No politician is going to tell people that they might not be able to keep their existing plan or see their current physician. They’ll just lie, pass their legislation, and deal with it down the road.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 7:09 PM

joana on April 28, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Regarding the people with pre-existing conditions, I heard last year on several talk radio programs from people that could not get it. That was open for a short time and then the Insurance companies cut it off.

I haven’t read this year of what the status is on insuring those with pre-existing conditions.

Also, I’ve heard of many people that have applied for Obamacare, being put on Medicaid when they were able to pay for Insurance.

I don’t think we’re hearing too much truth about the actual working of this.

Many can’t find Doctors or they are 100 miles away and or the Hospitals are closing. Doctors leaving practice also..

Obamacare is totally destroying the U.S. Health Care.

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I assure you, I don’t have the faintest of the clues on how our society should be built and frankly I don’t care.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 6:55 PM

So you don’t actually know what we should do, you just want to tell us how to vote. At least you’re honest about it, I guess.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 7:11 PM

If our congressional representatives would do their job, Obamacare would already be history….Paul and all the RINOs are protecting their nest egg and donor funds….sadly, the voters no longer have a voice in DC. It is all about the money.

phoebe1 on April 28, 2014 at 7:12 PM

You’re not very good at this, are you?

Bishop on April 28, 2014 at 5:36 PM

What is there to be good at?

Are we playing hide and seek?
Are we playing mahjong?

You are always saying “your’re not very good at this, are you?” What does that even mean? It’s the comment section of hotair for bejesus sake, not a football game.

Oh feel free to answer on how I am not very good at being very good at this. or whatever.

coolrepublica on April 28, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Well, we know she’s not a Tru-Con!!

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Spit my beer out…

OmahaConservative on April 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM

So now people with pre-existing conditions may or may not have coverage, depending on whether they can afford it but more have had their policies cancelled. This is better?

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM

Well, we know she’s not a Tru-Con!!

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Spit my beer out…

OmahaConservative on April 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM

Hope you didn’t spill any on Ratso:-)

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM

So you don’t actually know what we should do, you just want to tell us how to vote. At least you’re honest about it, I guess.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Yeps. Moreover, I tell people to vote for politicians who aren’t social engineers who think society should be organized like this or like that. Organizing the society isn’t the job of the government.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Yeps. Moreover, I tell people to vote for politicians who aren’t social engineers who think society should be organized like this or like that. Organizing the society isn’t the job of the government.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Everyone in politics is a “social engineer.” You’re just using a loaded term to stack the deck.

If you didn’t think you had the right ideas to make the country run better, why would you ever run for office?

Now you’re the one who sounds like an idealist. Like it or not, government passes laws that shape our culture. If you want society to be more gay-friendly, or more amenable to the 2nd amendment, how do you do it? If you’re an atheist who wants to get rid of public nativity scenes, how do you do it? Do you vandalize them and run away? No, you change the landscape through political action.

You’re calling us spittle-flinging idealists and then saying that “Organizing the society isn’t the job of the government”? Pretty sure we’ve already crossed that bridge.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Hope you didn’t spill any on Ratso:-)

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM

He is sitting here having some fried chicken breast. I made my famous fried chicken, mashed taters and milk gravy tonight…

OmahaConservative on April 28, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Everyone in politics is a “social engineer.” You’re just using a loaded term to stack the deck.

If you didn’t think you had the right ideas to make the country run better, why would you ever run for office?

Yawn. That’s the go-to argument of the left. Refusing the societal blueprints that social engineers promote isn’t social engineering. The absence of a plan isn’t a plan.

Now you’re the one who sounds like an idealist. Like it or not, government passes laws that shape our culture. If you want society to be more gay-friendly, or more amenable to the 2nd amendment, how do you do it? If you’re an atheist who wants to get rid of public nativity scenes, how do you do it? Do you vandalize them and run away? No, you change the landscape through political action.

Yeah, you’re apparently too dumb that I’m none of those things. Unlike socialists like you, I don’t think legislation should be used to change social mores. There’s nothing particularly idealist about this, it’s what being conservative is about to a large extent.

You’re calling us spittle-flinging idealists and then saying that “Organizing the society isn’t the job of the government”? Pretty sure we’ve already crossed that bridge.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 8:00 PM

You keep confusing things. I’d advise you to take a deep breath but I don’t believe it’d help. Anyway, in case someone else besides you is confused: there’s nothing idealist about my position. It’s not rooted in any kind of idealism. More importantly, you confuse policy goals with political tactics.

My goal is to reduce politicians (the government) intervention in society. Just because I know the US won’t turn into a minarchist paradise any time soon it doesn’t mean that stops being my goal. To achieve it, I’m willing to banter and compromise. I’m willing to support and vote for people who might believe the proper role of the government is far larger than the one I’m willing to concede.

Back to you: I think this stuff is more sophisticated and nuanced that you’re capable of understanding, at least at this stage of your life. So I don’t think it makes much sense to keep debating this with you.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 8:00 PM

You’re setting pearls before swine, my friend.

lineholder on April 28, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Hope you didn’t spill any on Ratso:-)

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM

He is sitting here having some fried chicken breast. I made my famous fried chicken, mashed taters and milk gravy tonight…

OmahaConservative on April 28, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Oh, I bet he’s lovin’ that:-) That sounds like a yummy dinner.
Oh, Levin said just now that Cruz called on John Kerry to resign!!
Back to your chicken dinner. I had all of that for Easter Dinner, but added Stovetop dressing & baked yams. I’m getting hungry again:-)

Looks like those storms are headed into Indiana and also KY and moving North into the lower of Ohio. Those storms are just all over in various directions. Prayers for all in their paths. So sad that something can’t be done for protection.

bluefox on April 28, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Paul: “What do I need to say today to get the establishment to support my Presidential bid?…What’s that? Principles? What are those again?”

searcher on April 28, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Funny how Democrats never think this way.

Democrats never say “Boy.. it’s going to be difficult to create socialized medicine. People get pretty accustomed to picking their own doctors, paying inexpensive premiums and living in freedom. Not much point in trying to take over the country. Liberty is here to stay.”

JellyToast on April 28, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Hey.. imagine for a moment some prominent Democrat like Pelosi or somebody saying… “Boy.. it’s going to be difficult to create socialized medicine. People get pretty accustomed to picking their own doctors, paying inexpensive premiums and living in freedom. Not much point in trying to take over the country. Liberty is here to stay.”

JellyToast on April 28, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Not the guy some think he is.
Not to be trusted.

Carnac on April 28, 2014 at 9:17 PM

“People get assumed and accustomed to receiving things, particularly things that they get for free.”

Exactly what Rush Limbaugh said before it passed. There’s no U-turn once it did.

Marcus on April 28, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Yeah, you’re apparently too dumb that I’m none of those things. Unlike socialists like you, I don’t think legislation should be used to change social mores. There’s nothing particularly idealist about this, it’s what being conservative is about to a large extent.

What you think is utterly irrelevant. It’s hilarious to hear you talk about being in the “reality-based community” and saying that you “don’t let your ideals obscure the facts” then spout absolute drivel like this. Sorry, but legislation is used to shaped social mores. Period, end of story. Your idealistic fever dreams to the contrary don’t change the reality on the ground.

You’re so off-base on this that I know you’re just trolling, so you’re right, I shouldn’t get worked up about it. No one could be as clueless and obtuse as you are pretending to be.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 9:37 PM

I’m late to the game as usual. Put some peppermint striped shorts on the dude and he would be a young Richard Simmons. I wonder if he puts his clown shoes on before or after he drives his Smart Car?

HonestLib on April 28, 2014 at 9:43 PM

My goal is to reduce politicians (the government) intervention in society. Just because I know the US won’t turn into a minarchist paradise any time soon it doesn’t mean that stops being my goal. To achieve it, I’m willing to banter and compromise. I’m willing to support and vote for people who might believe the proper role of the government is far larger than the one I’m willing to concede.

Back to you: I think this stuff is more sophisticated and nuanced that you’re capable of understanding, at least at this stage of your life. So I don’t think it makes much sense to keep debating this with you.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 8:15 PM

You’re willing to banter and compromise (I think you meant barter, though you are certainly an expert at bantering)…by calling everyone who disagrees with you a crazy TruCon and insisting that your path is the only sane one.

Back to you: I think all of this is so over your head that you can’t even keep be consistent to your own lame, faux erudition. I think you’re so out of your depth that everything you write comes off as self parody. I think you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about so you hide behind a keyboard, an outsized ego and a lot of talk about nuance and sophistication when your philosophy is blunt, simple, idiotic, wrong-headed, and runs absolutely contrary to the facts.

Keep pretending 99% of the party agrees with you. Over here, us in the “reality-based community” will do the actual legwork of building a coalition and trying to win an election. Fell free to suck on our exhaust, though.

Sincerely,

The Coalition of TruCon Crazies

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Here’s a difference between fantasy and reality:

I wish we could nominate the absolute best person for the job in 2016, even if it’s an old Christian white male. But we’ll almost certainly lose if that’s the case. If we’re going to go with a white male, it at least needs to be someone vibrant and young like Paul or Walker.

I hate that we’re so shallow and ethnicity/gender/age/looks obsessed as a country, but you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 10:00 PM

“Getting it for free”?

Middle Class producers, ie Republican voters, are getting it in the shorts.

I simply do not understand what’s sacrosanct about a program that holds our voters hostage while allowing their voters to plunder us.

Our voters would rejoice to see it gone and who caress if their voters don’t like it. As with illegals, they are not going to vote for us anyway, so why shouldn’t we punish them to the benefit of our own constituency?

Especially when it’s fully in defense of the freedom ethos.

Obamacare could be rendered an entirely dead letter via EO on Day 1 of a new administration–but Paul lacks the intelligence and moral courage to do it.

This must be the litmus test. No to Paul.

bildung on April 28, 2014 at 10:29 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Wow, you really are some kind of a moron in her eyes. But at least you have a lot of company. She reminds me of Obama.

Cindy Munford on April 28, 2014 at 10:55 PM

Not to mention the building of the Mackinaw Bridge. Building one equal to or greater than it, that is.

Bmore on April 28, 2014 at 11:01 PM

Or should that have been, then?

Bmore on April 28, 2014 at 11:03 PM

Gonna stick with, than.

Bmore on April 28, 2014 at 11:04 PM

Either way Rand is doing some serious unforced error stuff as of late. Very disappointing.

Bmore on April 28, 2014 at 11:05 PM

You’re willing to banter and compromise (I think you meant barter, though you are certainly an expert at bantering)…by calling everyone who disagrees with you a crazy TruCon and insisting that your path is the only sane one.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Do you really think I call everyone who disagrees with me a crazy TruCon? There’s plenty of people I disagree with. I only call that to the very small minority of crazy TruCons©.

Back to you: I think all of this is so over your head that you can’t even keep be consistent to your own lame, faux erudition. I think you’re so out of your depth that everything you write comes off as self parody. I think you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about so you hide behind a keyboard, an outsized ego and a lot of talk about nuance and sophistication when your philosophy is blunt, simple, idiotic, wrong-headed, and runs absolutely contrary to the facts.

Keep pretending 99% of the party agrees with you. Over here, us in the “reality-based community” will do the actual legwork of building a coalition and trying to win an election. Fell free to suck on our exhaust, though.

Sincerely,

The Coalition of TruCon Crazies

Good Solid B-Plus on April 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM

I’m not sure why people lose time throwing personal insults at me. It’s something TruCons love to do -it’s pretty much what defines them and their debating style- but can’t you figure out it’s a loss of time? It doesn’t serve any purpose.

99% of the party agrees with me on this. Even some TruCons do, in case you missed it. And your grandiloquent rhetoric is hardly impressive. Those who actually do legwork for the party don’t go around bragging about it.

joana on April 28, 2014 at 11:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6