Rick Perlstein
said it best, “I believe politics is a team sport. That, for awful and unfortunate reasons beyond any of our control, the American system only allows, effectively, for two teams.”Posted on 09/22/2017 8:13:53 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative
Rick Perlstein
Is politics a team sport? The question resurfaced recently when Senator Rand Paul referred to the Graham-Cassidy Health Care Plan as — “Amnesty for Obamacare.”
Rand Paul Gives Graham/Cassidy a New Name: 'Amnesty for ObamaCare' - Big League Politics https://t.co/0RN6K9g6TG — Rand Paul (@DrRandPaul) September 19, 2017
When I saw this, I immediately fired off a tweet to Senator Paul stating, “Not again! It's a team sport. Time is up. If you are not Republican, then get off the team and go join the Democrats.”
Not again! It's a team sport. Time is up. If you are not Republican, then get off the team and go join the Democrats. — Larry (@larrymwalkerjr) September 20, 2017
An unidentified third party then replied, “Wrong - it's absolutely NOT a team sport. Members must represent their constituents' wishes - not follow some pigheaded slogan.”
In reality, it’s Senator Paul who’s following a self-contrived “pigheaded slogan”, while most Republicans in the House, 90%+ of those in the Senate, and the Trump Administration are in support of a “bill”, which repeals the main provisions of Obamacare, and takes power away from the District of Columbia, handing it back to the states.
If politics isn’t a team sport, then why do political parties exist? And, what is the purpose of winning the majority in both houses and the White House if the party in control isn’t going to stick together on major legislation? Of course, politics is a team sport.
Yet there always seems to be at least one grandstanding maverick, almost always a Republican, who wants to make a name for himself rather than play his position. Face it, Rand Paul doesn’t represent any constituents. Like John McCain and a few others, he merely represents himself.
If Senator Paul represents anyone, it should be the party he belongs to, whichever that may be. At this point, he represents constituents of the Democratic Party, who oppose the bill at all costs, and cares nothing for Republicans, the majority of whom favor some measure of victory.
Under the Graham-Cassidy plan a Federal block grant is given annually to states to help individuals pay for health care, Planned Parenthood is defunded, and the individual mandate, employer mandate, and medical device tax are completely repealed, to name a few. But even better, it’s supported by most Republicans in the House, 90%+ of those in the Senate, and the Trump Administration. So, what’s Rand Paul’s problem?
If Senator Paul can’t get 90%+ of Republican Senators to go along with his proposal, which he can’t, then perhaps he should dismount from his high horse and support the 90%+ of his party who see merit in Graham-Cassidy. If that’s not good enough for Senator Paul, then only one choice remains.
Stop calling yourself a Republican, and go team up with those more in line with your views. At this point in time that would be none other than the Democratic Party, which stands firm, in unison, against every proposal favored by the President and the majority of Republicans.
Please explain, either or both of you, how in practical terms Obamacare will be repealed once the fast-track repeal period ends on September 30th.
Thank you.
The myth that Obamacare can be repealed after September 30 is predicated on the idea that the same people who don’t want to repeal it now will really, REALLY want to repeal it later.
Mitch McConnell, I’m talking about you.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/the_clock_is_ticking_on_obamacare_repeal.html
Obamacare will be repealed when the District of Corruption is emptied of corrupt politicians. When we have dumped enough weasels enriching themselves at our expense and elected decent people who want to shrink Fedzilla back into its Constitutional cage.
Don’t be distracted by a phony repeal by a phony deadline.
Obamacare will still be in place even if they do pass this.
There is no repeal in this bill.
There is no arguing with anyone who cannot calculate the difference between 51 and 60 votes. You are free to believe there’s no difference. That’s your choice.
.
Are you tone deaf?
What he is saying is that the very worst of O-care will remain in place.
.
>> “Obamacare will be repealed when the District of Corruption is emptied of corrupt politicians.” <<
And that will happen when Yeshua is sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem.
By that time I’ll have my incorruptible body, and be ruling with him! You???
.
I might be tone deaf, but I can read. And none of you are able to explain how the “worst of O-care will remain” once this bill passes? What is the very worst of O-care, other than that the program is administered by DC, that abortion is covered, and that it contains the individual mandate, employer mandate, and medical device tax? Removing power from Washington and giving it to the states become should be something we all agree on. So if you will explain what you are talking about, and how you can get it through Congress without any Democrat votes, I’m all ears.
I might be tone deaf, but I can read. And, none of you have been able to explain how the “worst of O-care will remain” once this bill passes? What is the very worst of O-care, other than that the program is administered by DC, that abortion is covered, and that it contains the individual mandate, employer mandate, and medical device tax? Removing power from Washington and giving it to the states should be something we all agree on?? If you can explain what you are talking about, and how you can get it through Congress without any DemocRat votes, I’m all ears.
“The myth that Obamacare can be repealed after September 30 is predicated on the idea that the same people who don’t want to repeal it now will really, REALLY want to repeal it later.”
If you change that “can be repealed” to “will be repealed”, I agree with your statement. It can repeal it whenever they want - but they clearly don’t, so it won’t be. The 51 senators now is just as much of a myth as the 60 later.
Why do you think it’s always so close? If McCain hadn’t given it another thumbs down, there were others ready to do so if it looked like it was in danger of passing.
Most of them have accepted payoffs by the insurance lobbies and it’s not an option to “do the right thing” at this point, they fear the wrath of scorned lobbyists far, far more than the wrath of voters.
ACA exists to protect the health insurance industry from competition. The entire federal government, with a few exceptions, has sold us out to the lobbyists, and works for them, not us.
Trump has to make every effort to keep his campaign promises, but he knows the senate will block him - he’s going through the motions, that’s why he doesn’t care what a turkey this bill is. If he pushes hard for it, he’s good for reelection.
I think Trump has to find other ways of draining the swamp. Expose RINOs prior to 2018, sign executive orders that disenfranchise lobbyists - wherever he can disrupt the flow of money from lobbyists, and prevent congress from doing their bidding, perhaps he can make it not worth the lobbyists’ while.
I’m not sure what he can do, but ACA is not getting repealed by this legislature. Draining the swamp will take decades if it happens at all.
I love what Trump is trying to do, but it will take a string of miracles to reform government.
I’m sticking with ‘can.’ Any possibility of repeal, however temote, hinged on the 51 vote threshold. If September 30th comes and goes with Obamacare the law of the land, it’s here to stay.
Thanks Rand Paul. For nothing.
PS: Enjoy your exemption. It’s good enough for a senator, but too good for the ‘little people.’
‘I love what Trump is trying to do, but it will take a string of miracles to reform government.’
I too am a Trump supporter, but on the repeal issue I have my doubts. Trump threatened to remove Congress’ exemption from Obamacare if they couldn’t come up with a repeal. We haven’t heard that threat lately. Do you believe it’s still a possibility or will Trump just let them skate, if they fail to repeal?
“Thanks Rand Paul. For nothing.”
Like I said, there’s an endless supply of paid off GOPe prepared to throw in a no” vote if needed to protect ACA. If it wasn’t McCain, it would be some other swamp RINO paid off by the health insurance lobbies. AND if by some fluke the Graham bill does get passed, it doesn’t repeal anything anyway, so the swamp wins either way.
So why on earth do you pick on the one Senator that voted “no”
from conservative principles? Rand Paul is not the enemy here.
“Trump threatened to remove Congress’ exemption from Obamacare if they couldn’t come up with a repeal. We haven’t heard that threat lately. Do you believe it’s still a possibility or will Trump just let them skate, if they fail to repeal?”
I liked the sound of it when he made that threat, but I don’t recall knowing how he could even carry it out. Was it something he could do by executive order or just another bill that wouldn’t get passed?
I just took it as something Trump thought “should” happen.
I’ll say one thing - if it was a bill that had to be passed in congress - it would reveal true colors of congressmen and senators. I’d put money on Rand Paul being perhaps the ONLY senator principled enough to vote to remove the exemption.
I would have thought my position was self evident. McCain is a Trump-hating backstabber. I’ve had serious questions about his IQ from long before he developed cancer. I think there’s something of the reptilian mindset at work in him.
The others opposing repeal are RINO liberal Swampers. They’re probably not Mensa either.
Paul is supposed to be both conservative and smarter than a sack of hammers. When he votes to keep Obamacare for us (but not for him) it’s a genuine betrayal. Unless he’s been putting on a good show and his IQ is actually around 80, he should be able to reason his way through the practical facts of this situation. For him to place his moral purity above the nightmare of saddling us with Obamacare forever *disgusts* me—and I only used that word because I couldn’t offhand think of a stronger one..
When McCain and his fellow Swampers betray the base, it’s the wound of an enemy. It’s entirely expected. When a person who ***claims*** to be a friend inflicts the wound, it’s sickening.
Paul can take his moral purity and cohabitate with it. I just wish he could do so outside the Senate.
‘Paul being perhaps the ONLY senator principled enough to vote to remove the exemption.’
Bol! Ah yes, he’s so often spoken out against his platinum healthcare plan, subsidized by the taxpayers. He’s so often noted the unfairness of the way the Senate treats themselves vs how they treat the schmoes. (He hasn’t.)
Trump was of the opinion that he could remove the Congressional exemption via executive order. I’m not holding my breath.
I have no doubt you and I are on the same side regarding ACA, and that this bunch of RINOs like McCain are paid off liars.
I just disagree with you about Rand Paul. His reasons for voting “no” on this fake repeal bill are different than the RINOs’.
He believes, rightly or wrongly, that if you appease the people by passing a fake repeal bill - it reduces the chance of getting a true repeal, because the political pressure to do so has been artificially lowered by deceiving voters.
He does this on every issue - if the GOP pushes a fake tax reform bill, he’ll oppose that too - it doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to lower taxes - he does. He votes against the RINOs because their bills are RINO bills - Reform In Name Only.
It’s ok if we just disagree on Rand Paul. He’s only one Senator. I’m sure you’ll agree the problem goes a little deeper than any one Senator.
Just one question. When has Rand Paul’s strategy ever paid off for his constituents?
“Just one question. When has Rand Paul’s strategy ever paid off for his constituents?”
Fair question - and I don’t have an answer. My adult children and I used to have this debate about Rand’s father - and I took your position.
I raised my kids as constitutional conservatives but they went one step further and rejected both major parties except Ron Paul who they trusted.
I used to make RR’s argument that 80% of what you want is better than nothing. Their rebuttal was that it’s nowhere near 80% - it’s more like 0% because the RINOs are no different than the Dems.
It’s funny - what we were arguing about specifically was my belief that they should hold their noses like I did, and vote for McCain and later Romney - I was SURE any Republican would be better than Obama.
Now I’m not so sure.
I can answer my own question. All Paul’s strategy does is burnish his moral superiority. He has never swayed the Senate in his direction.
If the purpose of electing a senator is to give them a pedestal upon which to preen, Paul is doing his job to perfection. If it’s so that he/she can actually enact legislation that helps the constituents, Paul is a miserable failure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.