View Article
28
Win or lose in the Supreme Court, President Obama has already lost in the court of public opinion. Polls show that two-thirds of Americans want at least some of Obamacare repealed.
 
If he loses the election in November, he’ll always wonder why he staked his presidency on an idea he opposed in 2008: the individual mandate.
 
That has become the lightning rod. And it helped his rabid opponents paint him as a big-government guy.
 
In an era when people are skeptical about complicated, big-government solutions, Obama took a complicated, big-government approach to health-care reform.
 
The last Democratic president famously declared that “the era of big government is over.” That was after his wife’s complicated, big-government solution to health care failed.
 
Maybe Obama should have taken smaller bites: pre-existing conditions, limits on insurance companies. Polls show high levels of support there.
 
Inevitably, some Democrat will say: “We just need to do a better job getting our message out and explaining the plan.”
 
Wrong. No amount of explaining will solve this problem. Americans just don’t want something big – unless it delivers them a nice present quick. Like Social Security, Medicaid or the prescription drug benefit.
 
Some Democrats, James Carville notably, argue that Obama will win by losing in court. Carville wrote in Politico: “I think that this (losing in the court) will be the best thing that ever happen to the Democratic party because health care costs are gonna escalate unbelievably.”
 
But I don’t see the public blaming the court for high health care costs. After all, they don’t believe the plan holds down costs. And it’s never good for a President to lose a fight – anywhere, anytime.
 
Actually, Obama could lose if he wins. If the court somehow upholds his law, it then becomes the big issue in the general election. With its poll numbers, that’s bad.
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (1) RSS comment feed |

Comments

Carbine
# Carbine
Friday, March 30, 2012 1:25 PM
Clinton was a much better liar than Obama, and knew better how to read the mood of the public. That's why his "era of big government" statement was such a classic. He didn't believe a jot of it, but he knew it was just what the public wanted to hear and he delivered it perfectly.

Obama gets away with a far less sophisticated disinformation campaign because he has the media so completely (except for FOX News) on his side. That's why even when he is (once again) caught on a hot mike explaining how he intends to dupe the American people on arms control, he barely has to exert himself to explain it away--he knows the mainstream media will do the work for him, which it did.

But I think Carville may be right on this one. As Gary well knows, hate, anger, and a sense of having been wronged almost always trumps reason at the polls, and a great bit Supreme Court slap in liberals' faces might just be what's needed to get their steam up to the level of the Tea Partiers this fall.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.
Blog by Snyder Interactive : Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :  DNN Hosting  :  Terms Of Use  :  Privacy Statement