Replacing Obamacare is harder than they thought

No surprise about the complexity of the task. The House just barely passed an Obamacare repeal-and-replacement. Now the Senate is trying to do it, and having even more trouble. While the House has some moderate Republicans, every moderate Republican in the Senate has a critical vote. Three defections to 'no' will scuttle the ACA replacement, so the margins in the Senate are even tighter. Also, each senator represents the whole state, not just the more conservative parts of it. It could be that senators need to be more concerned with Medicaid recipients than their colleagues in the House.

It's fascinating to read in this article what different senators want. Rand Paul and Ben Sasse (he of anti-Trump fame) would support a straight repeal. Is that position for real? Don't they worry about the ensuing chaos if there is no replacement plan?

Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, someone I wouldn't expect to be a moderate, is holding off on supporting the bill if it removes too much money from Medicaid. Louisiana isn't one of the richest states, so it probably has a fair number of people who have gotten their healthcare through the Medicaid expansion. Cassidy seems loathe to throw them back into healthcare limbo. Some senators, like Rand Paul, don't have such quibbles.

These negotiations will be interesting to watch. A pro-Trump PAC already targeted a senator leaning toward 'no' and already had to drop their pressure tactics. Whether the senators will be able to come together, compromise, and satisfy enough of them is an open question. A cool graphic in this article shows that more senators are concerned with the bill not covering enough versus those concerned with that it won't repeal enough. It leads me to expect a more moderate bill passing the Senate. But we shall see. Failure is certainly possible: only three senators need to decide to be stubborn to sink this bill.

Image: cbsnews.com

Short: What's this 'Aqua Buddha' thing?

There are some snickers about Rand Paul and 'Aqua Buddha.' Am I supposed to know what this is? Is it more or less important than Clinton and a blue dress?

I don't want to look like an out-of-the-loop fool, so I fired up Google and found the answer to this mystery ...

It's definitely worth a few snickers. Rand Paul pulled a college prank 30 years ago, someone dug it up, wrote an article about it, and then his senatorial opponent stupidly cast doubts about Rand Paul based on this ancient inconsequential incident. Rand Paul correctly rained scorn on the opponent when he brought it up during a debate.

Be sure to check out the links because everyone should have a good laugh. But I have a follow-up question: what is the future for 'Aqua Buddha?' I think this is just the beginning. We may have decades of Aqua Buddha fun in store for us.

Image: downwithtyranny.blogspot.com

Short: Rand Paul's stupid logic

Let me try to understand this. Rand Paul is saying there's no GOP "War on Women" (a slogan that exaggerates) because Clinton had an affair. That's his argument? What an incredibly lame and stupid argument that is.

Here's why: That's not a defense of GOP policies. If he wants to defend GOP policies with regard to women, he should defend those policies. Bringing Bill Clinton's personal behavior from 15 years ago has NOTHING TO DO with GOP policies. Rand Paul, your argument is a giant logical FAIL.

He forgot to bring the sense this time.

Image: thedailysheeple.com

Christie is a big target

One day after his reelection by a 60-38% margin, lots of conservatives are sniping at Christie. Christie isn't a doctrinaire conservative, much less a Tea Party patriot who lives and dies by principle. But the targeting is surprisingly aggressive.

Tea Party Critique

Here's a line that you can say about any politician (just substitute a name): "Christie is only out for Christie." Christie isn't a strict GOP partisan, so that makes him "self-serving." Do the people who criticize Christie for that also criticize Ted Cruz or Jim DeMint for behaving the same way--not supporting all their fellow Republicans? No, I don't think they are tarred the same way.

Yet I'm pretty sure this is the inside meme about Christie among the Tea Party. It leaked nationally when Rand Paul said Christie was all "gimme, gimme, gimme" over Sandy disaster aid. Now I'm seeing it again in the comments sections of conservative sites.

This idea that Christie is a self-promoting politician is a convenient ad hominem attack that allows people to dismiss him. There will always be plenty of evidence to support this charge. I don't know how whether the charge will resonate with others--Christie seemed to have put his state first when Sandy hit rather than toeing the party line. Ironically, the same incident is used as evidence that he puts himself first. Good luck finding the objective truth in that argument.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio is reminding his party not to get too excited about Christie: "...some of these races don't apply to future races." So Rubio demonstrates again that's he's the biggest weasel lining up for the 2016 presidential primary. (Or is that just a different flavor of ad hominem attack that's hard to refute.)

GOP Establishment View

Establishment Republicans, often denoted as GOPe, aren't trumpeting Christie as much as the Tea Party is trying to tear him down. Michael Barone sees lessons for both the GOP and Dems in these elections. Provocation, especially on social issues, leads to losses. Dems can't count on the minority vote because Christie won 51% of Hispanics in New Jersey.

One of the HotAir writers wants the readers to see that Christie has a winning formula. However, the commenters mostly push back. Rich Lowry of National Review (quasi-establishment) sees some potential in Christie, but also some problems:

"...he offers a different kind of politics that can potentially unlock the presidency after a period of national futility for his party...
What Clinton had that Christie evidently lacks is a well-thought-out approach to his party’s predicament ...
Christie’s potential is in matching that Everyman appeal with substance. He could set out to make himself a Republican by and for the middle class in a substantive and stylistic departure for the contemporary party. -- Rich Lowry writing in Politico

Who Can Win vs. I Don't Care

The huge difference is how these groups see Christie is that one group (GOPe) sees Christie as a presidential contender who will bring in a lot a votes and won't be just a marginal winner. They are concerned with the mechanics of putting together enough votes to resist the Dems' demographic advantage.

The Tea Party group doesn't talk about demographics at all. They don't worry whether they can carry enough swing states. They are so sure a Tea Party candidate will win that they don't question it at all. To me, that's amazing--that you could be so sure that you wouldn't consider the electability of your nominee. Of course they've been burned on electability before. McCain was the most electable in 2008, though really he had only a ghost of a chance. Maybe they should have gone for the most conservative candidate that year, which was ... Romney. They definitely got burned in 2012. The Tea Party is pledging not to get burned in 2016. Well, we'll see. I'm not convinced that the Tea Party is the majority in the GOP, but perhaps we'll find out in 2016.

I know it's still too early to predict the 2016 primary race, but everyone is talking about it. Funny, the 2008 election didn't start in 2005, but the 2016 election started quite early in 2013. I chalk that up to the cold war in the GOP, which is getting hotter all the time.

Christie looks like the best hope for the GOPe even if a midwestern governor like Mitch Daniels or Scott Walker jumps into the race. Daniels looks like an older establishment Republican (yawn) and Walker is nerdly and possesses less charisma than Jindal. The establishment likes to coalesce around a candidate early, but that may not happen because Christie isn't exactly the GOP mainstream. Yes, it is too early to say.

Image: ronpaulforums.com

Short: Rand Paul WIN!

Mitch McConnell now supports legalization for growing hemp in the U.S.:

"It turns out some long talks with his libertarian-minded colleague Rand Paul have led to McConnell’s coming out in favor of industrialized hemp." -- Atlantic Wire

Image: crispgreen.com

Leader of the opposition

Ed Morrissey of HotAir writes a couple of interesting columns on who will be the de facto leader of the Republicans. He correctly points out that Boehner and McConnell will be too busy and too tainted with deal-making, so he offers these names:

1. Rand Paul
2. Bobby Jindal
3. Rick Perry
4. Marco Rubio
5. Chris Christie

These are mostly good picks in that they're likely to be visible leaders, if not the leader. (It makes me wonder who was the leader from 2009 to 2011 when the primaries started. Critics say it was Rush Limbaugh, and maybe it was. Luckily not anymore.)

Rand Paul is certainly going to be the leader of the small-government libertarian pack. He has stayed almost constantly true to those principles. However, the libertarians aren't the dominant force in the GOP, so he couldn't be the dominant leader. His small-military views just aren't popular with most of the GOP, and they can't overlook that.

Bobby Jindal bucked a fair amount of the 2012 losing rhetoric, so it seemed that he was trying to make a name for himself as an intelligent reformer of the GOP. As a moderate, I like that, but I don't know if enough Republicans feel that way. Certainly the noisy ones don't. Nonetheless, he deserves to be on this list right now, but he could easily fall off by going too far or not far enough.

Rick Perry doesn't deserve to be on this list. He was a laughable candidate in 2011. Maybe the pain meds have worn off, but you can't fix stupid. He gives every indication of having been briefed on all of his opinions, rather than mulling them over and developing his own ideas. I think he's someone's marionette. If he can become a national leader, then I don't know anything about American politics.

Marco Rubio is certainly running for leader and running for president. However, Romney's campaign showed the weakness of choosing someone who is constantly running for office instead of being engaged in actual governing and problem-solving. Rubio is flash but no substance at this point. I don't think the GOP will go for a lightweight again.

Chris Christie has lately been reviled among many Republicans, so it's hard to imagine him rising above that to be a spokesman and leader of a large enough slice of the GOP. He's certainly got the verbal talent and a can-do record, but too many Republicans hate him right now, and that's not going to be easy to change.

Something missing from this list is the conservative-pragmatic governor archetype. I'm thinking Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Rick Snyder. They've all dealt (cleaned up/reformed) at the state level with the kinds of problems the federal government faces--how to trim spending and reduce benefits for government workers without massive service cuts. Also important, they haven't tainted themselves with culture war rhetoric on abortion and contraception as Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has.

These governors are the solid, working leaders in each of their states, but who speaks for them nationally? If they did have a national champion, that would be a formidable leader. I'm going to be curious to see how this develops. The next few months will be worth watching.

 

Image: qctimes.com

Extra. Will we have new leaders in punditry? It's less important, but it would be such a relief.

Update 6/21/13. According to this column, Jindal has trotted out the typical GOP fallback position of bashing liberals. It looks like Jindal will put on any stance when it is expedient, including clear-eyed reformer. Too bad it was just an act.

The Libertarian choice of rights

I notice that many libertarians are very proud of their fundamental belief and emphasis on rights. They deserve to be, because they take a principled stand to defend these rights even if outcomes are adverse. No profiling, no surveillance of possible terrorists without specific cause, so violations of other countries sovereignty to fight terrorists harbored within their borders--these policies would seriously hamper anti-terrorist efforts that have kept reprisals on US targets (targets meaning US lives and property) quite low.

I acknowledge their idealism, though I don't fully support it. But in one area, they have seriously made a poor choice. They put property rights above human rights, particularly the fundamental right to be treated as equal. So "All men are created equal" takes a back seat to "life, liberty, and property." This choice shows in their lack of support for the Civil Rights Act, which requires public accommodations (businesses open to the public) not to discriminate against classes of people who often suffer from discrimination. So you can no longer bar blacks from your lunch counter, Jews from your apartment building, or Catholics from your factory.

I don't understand how libertarians choose property rights ("it's my business, and I'll run it the way I want") over the civil right not to be discriminated against in a public venue ("unless I do something wrong, I should have the same rights in public spaces as anyone else").

It's quite possible that I don't know what I'm talking about here. I haven't delved into libertarian philosophy and have absolutely no plans to. But like most of my posts, this is based on honest observation and reflection of what I've seen in news and on the web. I'm not sure there are other ways to interpret it. (Example: Rand Paul comments about not supporting the Civil Rights Act.)

If I'm wrong, I'm counting on libertarian readers to set me straight, and to defend their position with reasoned arguments. That means that you should be prepared to answer my main point, which is property rights shouldn't have priority over personal liberty.

Photo: wn.com