David

Karki

Read David's bio and previous columns here

August 19, 2009

The Strategy for Defeating ObamaCare

For all the times that I have criticized the Republican Party for its timidity and quietness in regard to President Obama's abominable health care bill, there at least is one good thing that has come from it: The Democrats cannot plausibly blame the GOP for the outpouring of opposition at town halls all over the country during Congress's summer recess, or try to explain all that away as a manufactured political stunt.

This outpouring – crowds of 4,000-plus in Colorado and Georgia recently – shows no signs of abating. And while the long-standing political axiom holds that when one's opponent is committing suicide, you should simply get out of the way and let them, there is only so far that strategy can go. In this case, it falls short in two ways.

One, this is not a zero-sum game. The folks protesting the federal takeover of health care are no more enamored of Republicans than Democrats. The GOP will not automatically gain by any Democratic loss, and the party leadership should indulge with caution the presumption that they will.

Two, the Democrats are not necessarily committing suicide. Between the length of time remaining until November 2010 when all of this outrage can finally be turned into action, a compliant media, ACORN stuffing the ballot boxes, and passing amnesty to instantly create 20 million-plus new Democratic voters, they can survive this.

And, given that the health care bill will kill free-market America as we know it, it would be more accurate to say they are committing homicide. That, by definition, carries a moral imperative to act and not to stand idly by and watch in the vain hope that either the murderer misses the target or the victim somehow survives the wounding.

So what can the GOP do? Now that the Democrats have duck-marched themselves right up to the precipice of the cliff, what shape or form would the final nudge to send them off it take?

The first step to determining this is to define victory. In this case, that means defeating the bill. Not just watering it down, not just taking off the worst couple of features – since the Democrats can simply “reform” it later, perhaps merely via executive branch regulatory fiat and not even having to pass anything new. But defeating the bill in its entirety, understanding that once this camel's nose is under the tent, it will never be gotten back out again.

How can this happen? The Republicans don't have the votes to do this by themselves. Heck, they're not even close. This means that they will need to rely on the votes of liberal RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and “Blue Dog” Democrats (the operative part of that term is “Democrats,” make no mistake).

The former have already proven untrustworthy on the “cap and trade” vote that Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed through the House at the last second before everyone left for the Fourth of July holiday. Without their betrayal, “cap and trade” would have failed, and perhaps Pelosi wouldn't have forced the vote in the first place.

Thus, the GOP must start with this group of eight or nine liberal Republicans from suburban districts in Democratic blue states, and ensure they stay in the fold this time, no matter what. So far, they seem to be holding. Ironically, it may be that first vote which has made them more apt to stay home and not wander off the reservation this time.

That's even more true of the “Blue Dogs,” who are somewhat more conservative Democrats from southern and swing districts. Do not be fooled by the term; these are standard Democrats, who in principle have no qualms with government-run health care. They may be put off somewhat by the large price tag, but mostly they're scared to death about trying to prop up the rapidly crumbling fraud they perpetrated in order to have been elected from such districts to begin with. They cannot have a record that includes going along with “cap and trade” and an unpopular health care bill, and expect not to have an opponent tying them to San Fran Nan and relentlessly hammering them with the now-undeniable association.

So, for this group it may be a cynical and crass political calculation that gets them to vote the bill down. As I've pointed out, should this happen it will be on anything but principle. It will, in fact, be the right thing for the completely wrong reason – selfish careerism. But at this point, beggars can't be choosers when it comes to motive.

To that end, the GOP ought to make a display of finding and funding solid candidates in these Blue Dogs' districts as soon as possible. Really, they ought to have been doing it all along anyway, seeing as these southern and swing areas are by definition the Democrats' right flank and thus the most winnable. But any additional appearance of this will help drive the point home to those whose ideology runs closer to Obama and Pelosi but whose district does not – vote “aye” and your career will die. (Rhyme optional.)

In turn, this will hopefully help lead to the sought-after outcome: A “no” vote on, and the defeat of, the health care bill – and victory.

Even if it does make the “Blue Dogs” somewhat harder to defeat come 2010 (and it really shouldn't, given that every one of these supposed “moderates” voted for Pelosi for Speaker, meaning even a “no” vote on a high-profile bill shouldn't be sufficient to provide them plausible deniability for the responsibility of its attempted passage), that's the price the GOP has to pay for having lost both chambers and needing RINOs and “Blue Dogs” to even have the chance to win.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK194. Request permission to publish here.