Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dem memo: GOP doesn't have mandate for repeal

With Republicans gearing up to repeal health care reform, Dems urgently need to make the case that the Tuesday bloodbath did not give the GOP a mandate to roll back Obama's signature achievement, and the DNC is out with a new memo arguing that health reform was not a significant factor in Dem losses:

* Among those Democrats who faced competitive races, those who voted for the reforms fared significantly better than those who voted against it.

* Among the 93 competitive races that have been called, 67 featured Democrats who voted for reform and 25 featured Democrats who voted against reform.

* 35 Democrats who voted for reform won re-election, while 32 did not, for a win percentage of 52%.

* 8 Democrats who voted against reform won re-election, while 16 did not, for a win percentage of 33%.

* Also, among Democratic Senators facing re-election, only 2 of the 12 who voted for reform were defeated, Blanche Lincoln and Russ Feingold.

Though the memo seems backward looking, in that it's reinterpreting the results of the elections, the real goal is a forward looking one: Dems are pre-emptively trying to persuade opinion-makers, columnists and cable talkers not to play along if and when the Republicans take up repeal in earnest and begin making a public case that they have a mandate to proceed with it.

The coming repeal push is why Dems need to engage the debate over health reform's legacy right now.

By Greg Sargent  | November 4, 2010; 10:54 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Health reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Conservatives love "results oriented judges" they agree with

Comments

The GOP have more of a mandate for repealing ObamaCare than the Dems did passing it.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"The GOP have more of a mandate for repealing ObamaCare than the Dems did passing it."

The Dems had a Supermajority in the Senate and a larger majority than the current Republicans hold in the House.

Explain your logic.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

OT but when are Republicans going to ask Boehner to 'man up?'

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Rep. Joe "YOU LIE!" Wilson was sent back to Washington with a mandate to repeal ObamaCare:

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/government/elections/south-carolina-elections/2010-11-02/congress-candidate-joe-wilson-credits?v=1288703887

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

And, mikefromArlington, you are the LAST person on earth I have to explain anything to. Just watch and learn ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

They have more of a mandate because Joe Wilson was sent back to Congress?

That makes perfect sense.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Learn what? How to not make any sense?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington:

As you are well aware, I am not answering your questions to me because you refused to answer my questions to you before the election. Perhaps you should have thought about those consequences earlier.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Honestly, I have no clue what your talking about. That's the second time you said that.

Just ask me your question rather than keep whining about it.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans, powered by the TEA PARTY, made it WELL KNOWN throughout the land that one of their premier goals is to REPEAL OBAMACARE.

This was very clear and yet......

.......Democrats suffered a major blowout across the land.

How can we now say that America wants to keep OBAMACARE intact??

Come on now........really!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 4, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

New post from Adam Serwer on the hypocrisy of conservative attacks on "results oriented judges":

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/conservatives_demand_results-o.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 4, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

If The Affordable Health Care Act has to go, then so does Medicare.

Give everyone a refund on funds put into Medicare, inflation adjusted, and let them figure it out.

No reason why the elderly should get decent health care and not individuals who might not be able to afford it.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I jus wonder why anyone would support the monstrosity that is Obamacare. The org chart alone is a perfect illustration of all that is wrong with America's government today.

If the Democrats really wish to rally behind Obamacare, then at least Americans will know where the battle line is.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 4, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Anyone other than mikefromArlington:

If exit polls showed that the number one reason why every GOP Congressman won was to repeal ObamaCare, would THAT be a "mandate" in your opinion? Maybe we should define terms first.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I know you never respond to me, because we are from opposite wings of the Democratic Party, and I use researched facts in my posts, not easily rebuttable opinions.

However regarding health care, someone needs to speak to Howard Dean today.

"If Republicans think we're going to slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid and give tax cuts to those making a million dollars a year, we will wrap that around their necks and beat the hell out of them in 2012."

Someone need to hand him a copy of the legislation. Slowing the growth of Medicare is exactly where many of the largest "savings' in the bill come from.

However since Howard is a doctor, he knows that these cuts will never actually take place.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Obama and the Pelosites had no mandate to pass the atomic, stink bomb called ObamaCare but they rammed it through anyway using every parlimentary, dirty trick in the book.

The sweet irony of it all was that the ol' Schlickmeister himself, Bill Clinton, convinced all the little Obamatons that they must ram it through or they would face a mid-term wipe-out.

Ram it through they did but the wipe-out happened anyway.

I just defined the word, HAPLESS using Obamacats as example.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 4, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Jake, stop being a baby and ask your question.

When did conservatives become such whiners? Sheesh.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I really don't know how the Affordable Care Act protecting consumers rights is a bad thing.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

How hard is this? The House passes a bill repealing the Health Care Act and it never gets out of committee in the Senate. Then the House comes back with a bill repealing the individual mandate and it never gets out of committee in the Senate. Then, the House passes a bill insisting that HCR is defunded and it never gets out of committee in the Senate. Can we really do that for two years?

Posted by: klautsack | November 4, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

klautsack:

That's not hard, but "de-funding" can also include passing a budget that simply contains no appropriations for ObamaCare. Is Obama going to veto that?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Jake,

I seriously think you have me mixed up with someone else.

I don't dodge questions. I'm not a coward to defend a position.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Also, re: the Dems having a larger majority than the current Republicans hold in the House, that particular fat lady hasn't sung YET ; )

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=76265

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 -

Does a budget like that pass the Senate?

Posted by: klautsack | November 4, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

klautsack:

In my hypothetical question, yes. Look, you are under no obligation to answer my questions to you, of course, but I do honestly want to know if you think that OBAMA (not talking about the Senate right now) would veto a budget that includes everything he wants except for zero appropriations on anything related to implementing ObamaCare, especially ZERO money to insurance companies that provide abortion and other birth control?

If you'd rather not answer that simple (and, to me, obvious) question, don't worry as I won't bother you with another question ever again.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The Demonrats are laying the funeral wreaths for their own demise in 2012 if they don't realize the SERIOUS burden that the ridiculous fiasco of a Health Care Act puts on their backs.

This clueless collection of second-rate losers got messages all last year that the majority of Americans were against ObamaCare and yet they passed it anyway. They are going to reap the results of their arrogance for more than just one time if they don't wake up and start deconstructing this Frankenstein monster of a legislative eff-up.

Posted by: djman1141 | November 4, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

That goes for everyone else who refuses to answer my questions, from "kindness1" (How old are you?) to "MerrillFrank" (Did you see the fact check about Sarah Palin not charging rape victims for rape kits?). Those of your like "bearclaw1" know exactly which questions you refused to answer at least ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

54466546whatever wrote "...since Howard is a doctor, he knows that these [Medicaid and Medicare] cuts will never actually take place."

So true, and so ironic, good insight there 5446whatever; only people outside the industry think this bill might make health care cheaper and it is hard to tell if they really think that.

To me, it will always be the Omnibus Health Care Industrial Complex Stimulus Act.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 4, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2-

Childishness aside, your question doesn't have a basis in reality because that budget wouldn't pass the Senate. I could just as easily ask "what if the House passes cap and trade? Should the Senate pass it to?". But that has no basis in reality, which was my point all along.

As for a mythical budget bill that has no funding for HCR - yes, I think Obama should veto that. Any way you slice it, a government shut-down at this point in time doesn't do the Republicans any good. Besides, what exactly would they be cutting at this point? Expansion of Medicare? Funding for the insurance pools? Letting children stay on parents' insurance until they're 26? Most of the program doesn't spin up until 2014.

But we won't get to that point. Because the Republicans don't have the votes in the Senate.

Posted by: klautsack | November 4, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2-

Oh, so NOW the Republicans are somehow worried about abortions? Where were they last December after the Stupak Amendment passed? Strangely silent.....They string along pro-life activists the same way the string along social conservatives and now tri-cornered hat-wearing nonsense babblers. The Stupak Amendment (a Democratic amendment) was probably the most pro-life piece of legislation in a generation and it hardly garnered a shrug from any pro-life Republicans. If you had a half-dozen Republican Senators who were supposedly pro-life voting for the Stupak Amendment, this thing could have been done last January as a win, win, win. But that wasn't the game plan. Making Obama a one-term President is far more important to Republicans than any silly abortion stuff.

Posted by: klautsack | November 4, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

klautsack:

Maybe "making Obama a one-term President" is part of the anti-abortion plan. God works in mysterious ways. Look, it was very nice discussing the issues, but I asked if you thought that Obama WOULD (not should) veto my hypothetical budget.

So, have a nice life ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2-

So, let's just ride out two more years of 100,000 plus babies killed (by your logic) in order to make sure that Obama isn't president. How very dark of you. Even the Council of Archbishops supported HCR after the Stupak Amendment passed. Give me a call the next time the GOP has a serious plan on the table that does anything at all to curtail abortions.

If God works in mysterious ways, then perhaps it was his plan to elect a President who was serious about HCR and then have the Stupak Amendment miraculously appear. The opportunity was there. Your people blew it. They aren't about risk their political gains over something like abortion.

Posted by: klautsack | November 4, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Have a nice life : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2-

You really just don't care about abortion one way or the other. Maybe you did at some time, but that was a long time ago. The first clue was that you lumped birth control and abortion together in the same hypothetical scenario. Abortion, to you, is the same as birth control because it's about young, probably brown, ladies with nice hips and loud music. It's those damn kids and their damn irresponsible lifestyles. Now, an opportunity stares you right in the face to actually do something about it and all you can say is "God works in mysterious ways". Give me a break.

Have you heard the one about the lady standing on the roof of her flooding house? A boat comes by to rescue her and she says "No, God will save me!" Then a helicopter comes to pick her up and she says "No, God will save me!". Then, inevitably she drowns. She's standing in front of St. Peter and she says "I really thought God was going to save me." He says "God sent a boat and a helicopter. What more did you want?".

God only works in mysterious ways when you refuse to see the obvious staring right at you.

Posted by: klautsack | November 4, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I already gave you a break. For the record, I am not answering your questions to me because you refused to answer my question to you. Perhaps you should have thought about those consequences earlier.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

shrink wrote:

"So true, and so ironic, good insight there 5446whatever; only people outside the industry think this bill might make health care cheaper and it is hard to tell if they really think that.

To me, it will always be the Omnibus Health Care Industrial Complex Stimulus Act."

Thanks for the reply.

I had a funny conversation with a fine young lady who came to my door just a few days before election. She is a doctor who was runnning as a Democrat for my County Council. We chatted a few minutes, and then I asked her about the HCR and the SGR formula. She was genuinely shocked that I knew anything about it. Then she told me that of course the SGR would have to be eliminated and the Medicare payments would have to increase to doctors.

All the while she had a nice smile on her face and never once caught the irony that what she was saying undermined her party's whole financial basis of HCR in it's entirety.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

54465446, we are on the same page. I am a doctor actually and I work (perhaps like one of those guys in the control room of a nuclear power plant, like Homer Simpson) deep in the depths of the payment scheme systems. I'm a gate keeper of sorts, deciding what to do with very high needs patients in a certain sector of the industry.

I've tracked this bill since it was in its early drafts and I know all about what is in it, just as I am sure bank COOs know what is in fin-reg. There is no chance, not a chance it will pay for itself, it can not "save" more money than it spends.

The neo cons never thought their oil war was going to pay for itself and I don't think Democrats think the health industry stimulus bill will either. Democrats know Republicans are lying, but then they lie, just like the Republicans, albeit on a different agenda. When I've argued this point privately, the Ds always concede the point after some talking points parroting HHS and some CBO fantasies. They say, ok fine, but if we are going to waste a lot of money, I'd rather run it into an inefficient health care industry than wars and Wall Street.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 4, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

Now see that's an argument I can work my head around. If you want these things, I'm ok with that BUT you have to find an honest way to pay for them!

I think it would be great for every single person in America to have health insurance. Just FUND the damn thing!

Greg, are you listening to shrink, since you don't listen to me?

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

shrink2-

So what do you think an honest HCR bill looks like? How do you keep health care from becoming the only game in town while still providing good care? We hear the good and bad from other countries' models, but which one do you think does the best job? (from a cost and outcome perspective).

Posted by: klautsack | November 4, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

klatsack, 54465

Back here, 12B and I are getting there...what has to happen.

After some preliminaries, it starts at around 7:17 in this string, which I intend to get after tonight again.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sharron_angle_ill_answer_those.html

Posted by: shrink2 | November 4, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

shrink2-

I'm going to have to read that in more detail later. I wonder if you would consider putting your ideas together into an essay and submitting it to WashPo or somewhere. Are you familiar with Bruce Webb's blog? It's wonky, but he seems to understand the system as well as anyone.

Posted by: klautsack | November 4, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company