Obama Administration Finally Starts The Real Fight for the ACA
Supporters of so-called “Obamacare” have spent much of the last two years frustrated as it became apparent that the President was not going to spend much energy responding to critics of the bill, allowing them to run wild with only minimal response. In discussing it with a friend last night, we came to the conclusion that quite possibly the administration was waiting to see if it would make it through the Supreme Court. Why burn a lot of money and time and energy defending something that might get thrown out anyway?
If our theory was correct, then, we predicted, the Obama camp would soon begin an all-out blitz of publicity efforts in defense of the act and in the face of the critics.
Based on this new video, it looks like our prediction is right and even faster than we imagined: the full counteroffensive has finally begun. And right in time for election season too.
Watch for Republicans who were gleefully gloating that “Obamacare is not popular” to become stymied and/or furious, because when you say “Obamacare” most people are negative on it: why wouldn’t they be after years of non-stop negative assault, and only a weak response? Why wouldn’t people feel negative about it? But the fact is that on the individual components of the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), most Americans are in support. And all the administration needs to do is start pointing that out forcefully.
I’m thinking at this point we’re going to see a lot more ads like this. Just in time for election season. Yes, Republicans will rip it apart and find flaws in it. But this signals, I think, that the real political battle has just begun in earnest. Everything up until now was mostly sound and fury, signifying little.
(This item cross-posted to Dean’s World.)
Share This
Likewise, I think the Reps didn’t want to put much effort into a counter HCR proposal, since they were hanging there hopes on the mandate being shot down.
Now it is crunch time and Romney can’t just spout BS anymore if he wants folks to vote for him based on a repeal and replace bill.
taking ownership of “Obamacare” was quite Rovianesc.
“the fact is that on the individual components of the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), most Americans are in support. And all the administration needs to do is start pointing that out”
Agreed. We’re talking about education there, which of course is anathema to the Tea Party and the GOP. They will of course be throwing boatloads of money into ads designed to confuse and frighten those voters who aren’t adept at thinking for themselves.
Just read a column in the WSJ (horror!) about Liberal and Conservative’s attitudes:
“His research shows that conservatives are much better at understanding and anticipating liberal attitudes than liberals are at appreciating where conservatives are coming from. Case in point: Conservatives know that liberals are repelled by cruelty to animals, but liberals don’t think (or prefer not to believe) that conservatives are repelled too.”
Dd, the reason for that perception probably has to do with the following: Conservatives are generally more hawkish, less motivated by empathy, and less environmentally driven. Of course being repelled by cruelty to animals is a component of being fully human and not about political stripe. For example, I’m sure all republicans love their pets.
Z, the author was using that example, of the cruelty to animals, but he meant it in a more general way. I also think I observe it it some of the comments on this blog.
“His research shows that conservatives are much better at understanding and anticipating liberal attitudes than liberals are at appreciating where conservatives are coming from.
LOL How does this explain the TP and the flat earth, 6000 year old earth with a blond Jesus on dinosaurs..
DD Does the WSJ mention the scientific basis for what is a liberal and conservative.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/
rudi, the guy is a “mostly a liberal”, so It would seem he may know of what he speaks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577446512522582648.html
rudi, I read that article and liked the conclusion, which I think is in general agreement with Jonathan Haidt’s ideas.
“So you know what this means? Yep—each side is going to have to recognize that not everyone thinks like them, processes information like them, or values the same types of things. Each party is going to have to think of, i) what idea they are trying to communicate, ii) how that other group responds best to presentation of information (what turns them on or off), and iii) how to present it to that other group in a way that is both meaningful and non-threatening.”
I guess it depends on how you define “cruelty to animals”.
I know a few conservatives who don’t like to even think about spaying and neutering their pets. And I know a few conservatives who have abandoned their dogs (or puppies if their dog had a litter) at the side of the road when they no longer want them.
Sort of like the conservatives’ attitude towards human contraception and abortion….. and caring for the babies after they’re born. Republicans don’t support abortion and contraception, but they also do not support programs to take care of children.
I think the reason Obama is now strongly supporting his healthcare is that Republicans are trying to define the issue, as they have been all along. They’ve just stepped up their game. Mitt has been saying he would repeal it.
If the Republicans would accept this law, then there would be no reason for Obama to defend it so forcefully. Though he should highlight it as a big accomplishment.
Stock, I think you prove Mr. Haidt’s point very well.