Will the Democrats flub the politics of HCR - again?

Actually, they already lost. You look at the headlines out there, and it's all about GOP enthusiasm, GOP fundraising off the SCOTUS decision, how they have an advantage in down ballot because renewed enthusiasm from the Tea Party, and how Obama passed the biggest tax increase on Americans in the history of the country....this is what the media is reporting about.

This was the biggest policy win for democrats since the New Deal...and they are letting the GOP define the message war on their OWN terms. Instead of spiking the football, and doing a massive media push to talk about 30M newly covered Americans, sob stories of people dying of cancer and other treatable diseases because of insurance issues, the advabtages of the Health Exchanges, and patient Bill of Rights...I mean, they should we rammed this down the media throats and forced to the GOP to defend against that, instead thy are defending a non-existent tax increase. Americans love winners, and Democrats refuse to win.

This is what led us to the 2010 Red Debacle. The democrats pass a hugely changing entitlement that pretty much ultimately will benefit everyone, and then refuse to push what they did and let the opposition define what they did, which means they end up running FROM their accomplishments.

Rinse, Repeat, GOP wins. Healthcare, TARP, Stimulus, Auto Loans, economic recovery - These are things the Dems should have been able to run on. They lost all of those public debates - inspite of the fact that they had the truth behind them.

Of course.

I've written this elsewhere. My mother-in-law, who is the perfect example of the uninformed centrist, views the Supreme Court ruling as a massive failure for everyday Americans. They will now pay even more taxes to help those who refuse to help themselves -- another welfare handout from the President who curries votes from welfare recipients.

That's how this has been told to her.

I saw a list the other day of what the public thinks Republicans are good at, and what Dems are good at. You can't argue any item on the Dem list. Will fight harder for Social Security, Medicare, poor people, education spending etc. All true. The Republican list in contrast had corkers like better at cutting the deficit.

You don't make your case, you lose. The Dems have run away from ACA from Day 1 and they are losing.

Oh look, appoo is clutching his pearls again.

Dude, do you remember when your hair was on fire because John McCain won the election when he picked Sarah Palin? It's probably a good idea to let the dust settle a little bit before we freak out.

Clutching his pearls, I gotta remember that one.

But setting aside whether it's time for panic or not, he's onto something here. That the Republicans get credit for being better on the deficit is a disgrace. If the Democrats every screwed up on something the way that the Republicans have botched on the deficit, there's no way the Dems would escape a hiding. The Republicans would make sure of that.

At least 1 Democrat is on the right track:

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) accused Republicans of hypocrisy for pairing protests against a health care mandate with demands for increasingly invasive restrictions on women’s health.

“The only health care mandate they can embrace are transvaginal probes for women,” O’Malley said Friday during a press call.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...when-theyre-transvaginal-probes-for-women.php

Burn.

It's simple really:

"Our country is too great a nation to allow [fill in number of people] to be without adequate healthcare while the rest of us enjoy the best doctors, hospitals and medical treatment in the world."

Patriotic stuff like that ... whether true or not. You need to shame the other side as nattering nabobs etc.

There's some smaller bulletpoints to add on:
- pre-existing conditions
- kids til 26

but the big picture is what's been missing in the mechanics of incrementalism necessary for getting to 60 in the Senate.

I agree.

It's the type of association that needs to be repeated hundreds of times more by Democratic officials until November. Tie it to the "War on Women". Tie it to immigration. Tie it to anything and hit Republicans hard. I'm just encouraged that 1 Democrat is willing to say something like this at all.

At the very least, if O'Malley remains on the attack then that will likely force other blue state officeholders with higher political ambitions than Governor or Senator to go on the attack as well (since O'Malley is seen as a significant contender for 2016).

Democrats will always struggle as long as we keep weaklings like appoo around

TARP was a big winner. But you're correct. The Dems/Barry did a terrible job of selling healthcare when they passed it, so I understand why you're worried.

And as JohnR points out, Barry and the Dems have to counteract the uninformed center voters.

It's times like this when I miss Anthony Weiner.

Well apparently in person he was kind of a self-aggrandizing a-hole that no one really felt like defending, so I can somewhat understand that. I still miss him though!

Did you read the SCOTUS decision? The only way Obama's HCR was legal was that it was ruled a tax. It was, according the the SCOTUS, a tax increase.

http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/regblog/2012/07/justice-roberts-opinion-on-health-care-reform.html

I'm not a lawyer, but tell me which part of the bolded part of my previous post means it isn't a tax. I'm not being intentionally obtuse, just looking for your interpretation.

More from my previous link.

I was linking to the opinion of the chief justice because all I would get otherwise is pictures of goalposts and soccer pitches.

If I am reading your interpretation correctly, The Republican talking point that this is a tax increase isn't true, rather the mandate to purchase insurance is... a modest tax increase on those that choose not to purchase? So instead of the massive, across the board tax increase the Republicans are talking about is really a modest tax increase on those that choose to pay the tax instead of purchasing insurance.

Either way, it's a tax increase. You either pay to purchase insurance or pay the govt. for the right not to purchase. The Republicans are overstating the size of the increase perhaps, but the fact that this is indeed a tax increase seems to be inarguable.

The government forcing you to purchase something I would consider a tax, yes. I believe the SCOTUS agrees with me.