Politico In Full Spin Mode: Whether ObamaCare Is Upheld Or Struck Down, It's Bad for the GOP and Mitt Romney

Headline 1 (no link, screw 'em):

GOP Plans for ObamaCare: "Nothing"

That's their front page headline. Inside, we see the main headline for the article:

GOP in no rush to legislate if ACA goes down

Republicans still have only one thing in mind when it comes to President Barack Obama’s health care law: full repeal.

If the Supreme Court wholly or partially strikes down the law on Thursday, House Republicans won’t rush to pass a bill that allows young adults under 26 to stay on their parents’ insurance. They won’t pass legislation forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. And the gap in drug coverage that requires seniors to pay more out of pocket — the so-called donut hole — won’t immediately be closed.

Never mind that those are some of the most popular provisions in the health care law — Republicans will be in no rush to pass any health care legislation besides a straight repeal measure after the Supreme Court rules. They’re going to let legislation slowly wind its way through committees and get debated, dissected and amended. If the entire law or part of the law is upheld, the House GOP would vote for repeal, of course — they already have.

You see what they're doing there? They're emphasizing that if the GOP wins on this point, they actually lose, because they have "nothing" with which to replace ObamaCare, and in fact are just doodyheads who won't let "children" under 26 remain on their parents' health insurance plan.

This is what I call "pre-spin." And because I imagine it comes from the White House, I'm thinking the White House was tipped off, and tomorrow will be a bad day for them.

Same writer -- same! -- packages up the winners and losers, depending on tomorrow's holding.

Supreme Court health care ruling: Win-lose scenarios

...

President Barack Obama

Best case: The law is upheld in full.

...

Worst case: The court strikes down the entire Affordable Care Act.

Simply a nightmare for Obama....

Hard to argue with that. Seems pretty obvious. Now comes the same spin about the GOP having "nothing."

You would think that if a full repeal is worst-case for Obama, it should be best-case for Romney.

Nope.

Mitt Romney

Best Case: Nothing would energize Romney’s supporters and give his campaign more focus than the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act.

What? Obama's best case is also Romney's best case?

Such a ruling would give Romney license to spend the next four months railing exclusively against Obama’s health law, rather than being forced to explain how he would address health care.

“He hasn’t done it so far because why would you get off the message of Obamacare?” said GOP operative Chip Saltsman, who ran Mike Huckabee’s 2008 campaign. “That’s a winning message, ‘I want to repeal Obamacare.’ There’s not much else you have to say.”

Worst Case: If justices repeal either the mandate or the whole law, Romney will have to get specific about his own plans. He may also have to explain why he supports a ruling that knocks out popular elements of the health law.

So this author is setting up a curious situation: Whatever happens tomorrow, it's either good for, or bad for, Romney equally as it is good for, or bad for, Obama.

He's pretty much claiming it's a wash either way. Win or lose, it's a wash for both candidates.

This is the exact same thing he tried to peddle in the previous story I excerpted.

And what does the White House have to say?

Let's go to Politico again, this time a different writer.

W.H. blogs about ACA; no SCOTUS mention

By KATHRYN SMITH | 6/27/12 1:16 PM EDT

Supreme Court? What Supreme Court?

In a blog post Wednesday about President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, the White House had not a word to say on the court’s looming decision on the law’s constitutionality, which is less than 24 hours away.
Continue Reading

Instead, the White House continued highlighting various popular aspects of the law.

Health policy adviser Jeanne Lambrew wrote about how the law is benefiting Americans by providing preventive care, coverage for young adults on their parents’ plans and reductions in drug costs for senior citizens in the prescription drug “doughnut hole,” as well as stopping insurers from canceling policies when someone gets sick.

Note that the White House is not discussing the mandate or the ruling-- just once again ginning up support for the other, less controversial elements of ObamaCare.

Also note the stuff about the donut hole -- stuff the first excerpted article tried to sell you on.

Sure seems the White House is a full-court blitz about the donut hole and "children" under age 26.

Why should they be, if ObamaCare will still be law of the land tomorrow at 10:01am?

Now, if you think that high-level people have been tipped, and you also assume the White House is spoon-feeding Politico what it wants the ledes of the day to be -- two things I think are true; the first is likely true, the second is... well, just read Politico and draw your own judgement-- then it sure seems like the White House has been told ObamaCare is done.

I'm just about convinced: We won.

Now, I certainly wouldn't advise any oyster-fishermen to start shucking eachother's conchs just yet.

But I would say that conchs are tasty.

More! Roger Simon (the Politico one, not the Pajamas Media/screenwriter one) makes my heart sing with his preemptive sour grapes.

Our Supreme Court has lost its honor

By: Roger Simon
June 27, 2012 03:55 PM EDT

Once upon a time, in a place called America, there was a government with three equal branches. That America no longer exists.

One branch now rules American life.

It is the Supreme Court, and it consists of nine people elected by nobody. They rule for life. Their power is absolute.

To overrule them requires an amendment to the Constitution, a process so politically difficult, it is nigh on impossible. (The most recent amendment, the 27th, which deals with congressional salaries, took 203 years to ratify.)

Technically, the justices can be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors, but none ever has been.

There is no aspect of American life — from civil rights to sports, to guns, to religion, to sex — over which the justices have not exerted control.

...

Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, wrote in his dissent in Bush v. Gore in 2000: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

That is a lot to lose. But we have lost it. And getting it back may be a long time in coming.

We won.

I didn't bother quoting all his blather, but suddenly he's against the whole principle of judicial review, asserted by Justice Marshall in like 1801 or something.

Now, I'm ambivalent about that, myself. But until today, liberals all swore it was the Bestest Thing In The History Of Besties.

Why the sudden whining?

Oh, right.

Thanks to Slublog for that one.

Assuming this has leaked -- that at least someone gave a tip-off about whether or not the White House should prepare for a good day, or a bad day -- then all of Politico's furious spinning makes perfect sense.

We won.

We won.

We won.

Slowin' My Roll: I have to note that the White House's pre-spinning via Easy Turn Politico would make sense even if they had no tip-off -- they would pre-spin it in case they got an adverse ruling. And then, if they got a positive ruling, who cares? All the spin would be immediately forgotten.

It's a cost-free bit of insurance. (The insurance also provides nothing in return; it's not like anyone buys this crap. But it also costs nothing.)

Still, even having said that, adding it to the other tea leaves... I just get the sense the White House is preparing for a bad ruling, and not just out of prudence.

posted by Ace at 07:44 PM

| Access Comments