A broad coalition is emerging behind a platform of ideas to reform the Republican Party. Ideas include: Rebuilding Our Grassroots Infrastructure. The fabric of the Republican Party at the local level is rending. We saw it this spring when a small and energized base of Ron Paul supporters succeeded in...
The health care battle heats up as issue advocacy groups, such as Americans for Prosperity, start running ads against Obama’s government-run plan.
An advertisement produced by the RNC that won’t air on ABC because, well, our money (and message) is no good to them. The only currency (and message) ABC currently accepts is unpaid-for, deficit-increasing, bureaucratic-based, and government-run, unless of course, such is proposed by a Republican, and then ABC is automatically against it.
Good question.
The Republican strategy to defeat health care looks like it will be to attack the price tag in a time of recession. That may be effective short-term, but I think it is a mistake long-term.
By basing our argument on cost, we essentially are arguing over procedure, not substance; not right now, we cannot afford it. But the economy will get better someday, despite the suffocating regulation and increased government control of the private sector. When that happens, what will our argument be then? We will have conceded that nationalized health care might be a good idea, if we just had the money.
This would be a great opportunity for the Republicans on the Hill to present a conservative alternative to the health care problem. Instead of only standing against the president and the Democrats, we should try to stand for something. I do not know enough about Governor Romney’s plan in Massachusetts, but there has to be a free-market solution that would keep the government out of health care.
The other problem, at least in a subtle communication sense, is the language used: “How will they pay for it?” That’s our money, not their’s. How will we pay for it?
How will they pay for it? Better: How will we pay for it? Best: Why should we pay for it?
Bush Vetoed the SCHIP legislation earlier today, citing its fiscal irresponsbility stemming from its coverage of adults, children who already have private insurance and children of parents who make $80,000 a year.
No one is against covering at risk children, but kids with parents who make $80,000 a year or kids that already have insurance are not at risk.
Harry Reid has called President Bush’s veto “heartless” and further claims that,
Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people.
The next likely move by the Democrats is an attempted override of the President’s veto which requires a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate.
Neither is likely.
