On Friday, the Supreme Court voted on the constitutionality of the national health care overhaul (also known as ObamaCare, or, according to the GOP, the Obama abomination). As we wait for the ruling, no one can help but to speculate on how a 5-4 verdict against the law might impact the general election. From my perspective, I'll be relieved that we can now remove the popular and overused phrase "Repeal Obamacare" from the GOP vernacular (a Bachmann favorite). More importantly, however, is that this will certainly be a positive development for Romney, giving him a few new lines of attack, while neutralizing his arguably biggest weakness. But, does it swing the pendulum of the election far enough in his direction to make a difference?
In case you missed Peggy Noonan's weekend article in the WSJ, I believe she put it best when she described Obama as having "wasted time that was precious" and further alluded that the administration "follow[ed] an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole." Make no mistake about it -- the president took a gamble when he made his momentous health reform speech in front of the American Medical Association in June 2009. At the time, the Dow Jones was hovering between eight and nine thousand points (about 40 percent below its 2007 highs), unemployment was at 9.5 percent nationally, and the potential impact of the president's stimulus package remained uncertain. Yet, the administration still decided to make the landmark of its first term a health reform bill with a $1 trillion price tag.
We can be sure that the GOP nominee will consistently remind the American people that while our economy was suffering, the president (a former law professor) was busy advocating reforms that weren't within the government's power. And this argument is not a weak one. After all, this was the focus of the administration (and therefore Congress) for about 9 months, from June 2009 until the Affordable Care Act was passed in March 2010.
Beyond President Obama, a ruling disavowing a mandate will also serve to downplay the importance of the GOP front-runner's "biggest weakness." With a newly realized position of strength, Romney will be able to reiterate that what he enacted on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts not only fit within the limits of the state's constitution but was also the right reform for her people (and, most importantly, not a model he would support at the Federal level). He will also be able to criticize Obama for a failure that can't be blamed on Republicans (e.g., deficits from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Moreover, it will allow Romney to own the forward-thinking narrative on health care reform if he is able to present an alternative approach, ultimately putting the president on defense.
At the end of the day, yes, Obama wasted a lot of executive branch bandwidth on Obamacare, and yes, Romney will have a different avenue through which to attack Obama on health reform. But, the central theme of the 2012 election won't really change. In reality, the performance of the economy and the public's perception of how well Obama handled the crisis will be that much more important to his success in the upcoming election. After all, it will now be one of the few metrics against which voters can evaluate his performance. So, like both Team Romney and Team Obama, we'll all continue to watch the unemployment figures, home and gas prices, and the stock market (among others) as November approaches. For better or worse it will be those numbers (not the outcome of the Supreme Court vote) that will determine our next president.
Follow Abby Huntsman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/huntsmanabby
Joe Peyronnin: Romney's Veep-Stakes
Michael L. Millenson: GOP to Uninsured: (Feel Free to) Drop Dead
Bill Schneider: ... And Justice for All?
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Spoken like somebody who is acutely in touch with the common man.
There is no need to count votes to determine who wins elections, just give it to the Republican.
Private property owners don't have a right to their own homes if somebody comes along and decides they want it so that they can make some money privately.
Cities have no right to regulate handguns within their own borders, regardless of how bad crime may be.
People who have done absolutely NOTHING wrong can be strip searched over and over again by the police. Too bad.
Corporations are citizens.
It is ok for people or corporations from our country or others to give unlimited amounts of money to politicians, results be dammed. Who cares if our government is owned by a few.
And probably, the interstate commerce clause in our Constitution means nothing if a Democrat gets his way. The "Supreme" Court is so powerful that they can overturn any law that Republicans don't like.
You know what Abby, when you have a radical right-wing extremist activist court using their appointments to overturn the will of the American people for representative government, then yes, 5-4 does matter. A lot.
That's right, nothing! Even worse actually. They waste millions of political minutes and dollars striking down all valiant efforts to improve the Healthcare situations of millions of Americans. They offer no solutions for the everyday American while bending over backwards and forwards) to plump up their boated Healthcare lobbyist and corporation buddies.
Even if the Republican Supreme Court strikes it down, Hooray to President Obama for doing something about it. And we know he won't back down or give up about it. We all need to stay behind him in this battle for us, the everyday Americans, against the Insurance Industry, the Pharmaceutical Industry, the GOP industries.
Is there anything in the Constitution that prevents Congress from enacting the ACA?
And the answer is simple: No, there isn't.
Abby HuntsmanPR and media professional
GET UPDATES FROM ABBY HUNTSMAN
Like
23
Does 5-4 Really Matter?
Posted: 04/ 1/2012 11:05 pm
React
Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally
Follow
Barack Obama , Mitt Romney , Supreme Court , Elections 2012 , Supreme Court Health Care , Health Care Supreme Court , Obamacare , Scotus , Politics News
". He will also be able to criticize Obama for a failure that can't be blamed on Republicans (e.g., deficits from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)"
Do we live in the same country, and have access to the same information? The deficit from these wars, under Bush, were financed off budget, out of the federal budget, through treasury bonds. How on earth can Romney pin this on Obama?
Mitt Romney and Republicans make no sense. They argue against Friedman, Reagan, even our own professional generals. Every week is a new number one military enemy. Mitt has to pander to the crony war machine and the lunatics at Fox Nation. He even has to hide his economists from his billionaire friends.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/taxation-of-carried-interest.html
While you all have been busy flip-flopping for Fox Nation, President Obama has gotten the job done. He took care of business in Iraq, Pakistan, the Affordable Care Act, jobs, and the economy. All of our best and brightest economists agree with the stimulus and they agree that the Republicans plan to default was nuts.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi
Even Bernanke has argued for more fiscal stimulus rather than the gamesmanship of Fox Nation.
The jobless rate for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has fallen to 7.6%, well below the overall U.S. unemployment rate of 8.3%, and nearly five percentage points below the 12.5% rate for veterans a year ago.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/15/news/economy/veterans-jobs/index.htm?iid=HP_Highlight&hpt=hp_t1
So we will still be the only industralized county in the world without universal health care for its citizens....even Costa Rica has it....but we never will...
Good luck America..you had a chance....but turned it over to 5 Republicans on the Supreme court.
If Bush II would have initiated it, regressives would be praising it. Name one piece of legislation that has been supported by our President that was also supported by a majority of regressives, please.
condo Rentals Vancouver
Its good that the author's in PR and media. If her business involved thinking, well, she'd be without health insurance because she's got very little of that to offer to any employer.