I find it hard to believe the spin that the Supreme Court upholding the health care law is somehow politically better for Republicans because it will “energize the base.” Nullifying Obama’s signature legislative achievement — which he rammed through while the economy was on the brink — would have been a powerful blow to his campaign (and don’t tell me that wouldn’t have galvanized the conservative base just as well).
But there is a silver lining here for Mitt Romney. If the Court had overturned the law in its entirety, Romney would have been under intense pressure to provide a detailed alternative — a challenge that, as David Frum points out, would be difficult enough for him after the election. This would be a far more perilous task during the election, which is why, so far, Romney has avoided it.
Any Republican candidate would find it tricky to come up with health care reform that appeased the diverse conservative base, was politically and financially viable, and still somewhat defensible against Democratic attacks. For Romney, these problems are compounded by the fact that he’s still paying penance for RomneyCare. Conservatives still view him warily and don’t trust him completely, especially on health care. If his proposal wasn’t 100 percent Tea Party-approved, it could mean disaster for his campaign. And if it did pass muster with all the far-flung corners of the conservative base? Then Democrats would finally have the “radical, right-wing” candidate they’ve been dying to run against. They would do to Romney what they’ve tried to do to Paul Ryan.
Yesterday’s decision means Romney gets to avoid all that — at least for now.
Now, wait a minute. I agree the base is motivated to get out and vote for Romney, and this decision might not change numbers for the base, but it certianly changed the level of emotion and determination to get involved, give money, and work for other candidates. However, I also think it motivates libertarians to join the team to a larger degree, and also motivates fiscally conservative independents to get off the fence much earlier. I do think the decision is unifying and motivation for third party voters to come back into the fold for the GOP. The crystal clear decision is now to keep Obamacare or to not? Also, it strengthens Romney's arguments to independents about how he is a better steward of the economy. Independents, by and large, believe Obamacare hurts the economy. This is one more reason to vote for Mitt Romney, and it's a big one.
Please – enough of this Pollyanna "there's a silver-lining" business. There is no silver-lining, this is a total and unmitigated disaster at every level, and the likelihood of recovering from this is extremely low, if not nonexistent.
So, what used to be the supposedly crucial difference between Romneycare and Obamacare? IIRC, Romney used to say his reform is constitutional whereas Obamacare isn't. So how will this play out in the health care debates on TV in the fall? Given Romney's past positions, will he now be able to articulate a clear defense of his current views on the subject? And the health care issue will now be about presenting contrasting views for 2013 and beyond, rather than about Obama's poor handling of ACA. n nI am sure Romney will raise more money from disgruntled Tea Partiers because of this, but is difficult to see how his position vs. Obama is stronger now than what it was before Roberts declated the law is constitutional after all… n nMARCU$
Romney is going to have to renounce Romneycare — which with all of the problems it is currently causing in Massachusetts and with the generally Romney-friendly Pioneer Institute now in their second printing (not edition but printing – they sold out of copies) that documents the disaster it is and continues to be. n nForget being morally/politically flexible, all Romney has to do is say something along the lines of "it was a mistake, I am man enough to admit that I made a mistake supporting it, and the absolute last thing we need is this disaster propagated on the whole country." n nWill Romney do this — who knows. n nOf course, I still argue that Romneycare is unConstitutional and a violation of my "penumbra of privacy rights" defined in Roe. If the government can't interfere with my right to speak with my doctor about my health, what right do they have to demand a copy of his records about what we discussed?