Hugh Hewitt: Should The GOP Bail Out Obamacare?
In a great post this morning, Hugh Hewitt helpfully lays it out for us:
Thats’ right, one of the most ardent of the pro-Obamacare voices in the Senate now wants to join the self-appointed fire brigade trying to contain the five alarm blaze known as Obamacare.
This gang that had hitherto included only Senate Democrats desperately looking at their 2014 re-election campaigns being conducted in front of meetings full of cancellation-clutching, waiving fists. Folks like the hapless Mark Pryor of Arkansas, the smarmy Mary Landrieu and the utterly forgettable Kay Hagan want to lead the effort to save Obamacare.
The Keystone Kops of the Senate aren’t going to stand by and let Harry Reid and the president cost them their cushy jobs and, crucially, their very nice health plans.
Obviously, the Democrats want a do-over.
But should we give them one?
Hugh gives his answer:
Should the GOP go along with a partial fix that will help a handful of vulnerable Democrats save their seats and a few million Americans save their insurance –for one year?
Hard as it is for me to say given the peril of those Americans, I think the answer is no, unless the Republicans drive a very hard bargain, one that includes some very apparently unrelated items, items which are indeed connected to the terribly destructive way Harry Reid has run the Senate and the president has run the executive branch.
This is troubling to me. A Twitter friend last night reminded us of a particularly vulnerable group of people for whom there is not a lot of time (I apologize for the anger-driven language):
This is not who we are
I remember how upset Rush Limbaugh got when he first heard George Bush campaigning on a promise of “compassionate conservatism.” Why, he asked, do we need to append the word compassionate to a political philosophy which is, at its heart, more compassionate than any other?
Progressives always pull the compassion card, accusing everyone who doesn’t agree with their life-sapping “solutions” of lacking basic human decency.
And we know it’s a lie. We know that no government “solution” comes with even an ounce of compassion.
We know that government itself is incapable of genuine compassion.
My refrigerator has more compassion than any government program ever has.
We know that conservatism is compassionate because we know that conservatism actually works.
My Twitter mentions feed is full of let them eat cake reactions to my call for action:
So what do we do?
Hard as it is for me to say given the peril of those Americans, I think the answer is no, unless the Republicans drive a very hard bargain
In that “unless” is a lot that can be done, both to undo this law and to save lives.
As Hugh goes on to describe, we can drive a hard bargain.
For me, whatever else we bargain on, we need to do what we can to save lives. I think we can do that without delaying ultimate repeal.
But we have to be the adults—the visibly shaken, angry parents—in this “conversation,” uncharacteristically clear and strong in our messaging, first to culpable Democrats, then to victims and voters.
“How dare you put the American people in this position?”
“We are going to do what we can to save the lives of the millions of innocent Americans you put in danger with your power-hungry recklessness.”
“But you are going to pay, first at the polls, then as you dismantle the evil that you have done.”
Be it resolved:
- True conservatism at its core is deeply compassionate. We will not sacrifice the few for the many because that is not who we are.
- The Democratic Party hastily passed this monstrous law in the dead of night without popular support and without a single GOP vote.
- The Democratic Party owns this law and all its evil consequences. They would not listen to us as we warned them of what was to come from what they were doing.
- The Democratic Party refused to have the “conversation” they are now begging us to have.
- They own a destroyed economy. They own every lost election. They own every death that results from Obamacare. Nevertheless…
- If we have the means to save lives—and it is a real question whether that means exists—we will act to save lives.
- But when we act, we will do so in a way that does not relieve the political pressure on Democrats or slow the destruction and repeal of this evil law.
- We will not let innocent people die if we have the means to save them. That is not who we are.