This article is pretty funny. (Warning, Daily Beast link, they publish He Who Shall Not Be Linked and of course, the Twat).
It’s about how if the Supremes rule against Obamacare, it’ll hurt Romney more than the God-President.
The first paragraph sets the tone. I’d like to do a good, old-fashioned fisking of the whole thing, but it’s too long and far too stupid.
Everybody is speculating about what the impact on President Obama will be if the Supreme Court strikes down the health-care law. Understandable, since the law originated with him. But it got me wondering: what about the impact on the Romney campaign? I haven’t read a word about this, I suppose because it’s generally assumed that any crushing defeat for Obama (the conventional wisdom on an adverse high-court ruling) is a moment of ecstasy and mirth for Mitt Romney. But it isn’t necessarily so. A ruling against the law, depending on its scope, has three possible effects. It takes a massive campaign weapon out of his hands. It forces him to answer a key question he has so far not had to answer. And finally, and it has the potential to put him on the defensive since he will have to align himself with an obviously political and unaccountable Court majority.
Heh. I like the last three sentences.
No, it doesn’t take a “massive weapon out of his hands”, Romney can’t really run against Obamacare, it’s really just Romneycare writ large. It takes a huge negative off his hands. All he has to do is say, “I won’t be implementing it” (I know, that’s far-fetched, but I’m an eternal optimist and I’m hoping the House won’t let it happen again, since the GOP has a House majority mostly because of Obamacare)
As for “forcing him to answer a question”, no. It allows him to avoid the question of whether he is against it anymore. Because he flubs that question every time.
Now we get to my favorite part in the first paragraph.
And finally, and it has the potential to put him on the defensive since he will have to align himself with an obviously political and unaccountable Court majority.
Yup, the “Political and unaccountable Court Majority(TM)” that just happens to agree with most of the country.
They’re working hard to try to convince people that Obamacare is just hunky dory and those darn, evil conservatives (with their War On Women) are thwarting the will of Teh Peepul.
Or perhaps, they’re just trying to convince themselves. I really don’t understand why lefties do what they do.
Next we get to this little tidbit
By the fall, I’m guessing, if the ACA is overturned, the media will be demanding of Romney that he explain how he’s going to make sure people with pre-existing conditions can get reliable coverage.
I don’t think it’ll take until the fall, I’m sure Journolist is already on the case. Of course, they’ll hammer him over how he wants people to die no matter how he answers. Hopefully he has an answer for these questions.
Just because I don’t understand how lefties can think doesn’t mean I don’t know what they’re going to do. They’re really quite easy to predict.
The OUTRAGE!!!!! will be pretty funny as Minitrue viciously attacks Romney over this when he actually is for Obamacare, he just wants to “Fix It”, but now he’ll be saved from himself.
No good lefty rant is complete without showing he believes that Teh Peepul are idiots who need benevolent masters to make the world clear to them.
If the Democrats are doing their job, voters—and perhaps especially independent voters—are going to realize by the fall: “Hey, wait a minute, we didn’t quite know repeal meant that people with pre-existing conditions wouldn’t get coverage.”
Fool. Democrat voters will be outraged, independents will say, “Wait, you mean I can’t just wait until I break my leg to get health insurance to cover my broken leg? Ummmmm, duh.”
Takers who demand more of others’ stuff won’t be swayed, they’re already voting (D), independents who work for a living and are sick of the takers taking their stuff are not going to be surprised.
It goes on and on like that.
I can’t tell if it’s someone saying “Lalalalalalalalala” with his fingers in his ears, if it’s someone who’s trying to convince independents or if it’s just the first shot across the bows from our fine friends at Journolist.
Or all three.
I kept writing “This is my favorite part…” but there are too many to really say which is my favorite. Like this bit
But if a negative ruling galvanizes the broad left and focuses its collective mind on cogent arguments that appeal to swing voters,
Bwahahahahahahahhahaha. “Broad Left”? You mean the occupiers, the race-baiters, the unions or the teachers unions?
“Collective mind”, eh, I would have said, “Hive mind”, but the meaning is the same, so good for him.
And as for this “cogent arguments”, ummmmmm, what? “We want free stuff” is about all they have. People who are swayed by that silly nonsense (those who don’t agree with TANSTAAFL) are not “swing voters”, they’re already voting Dems.
I’d say “Read the whole thing”, but really, they don’t deserve the linky. I only clicked because I was bored when I saw the headline at Hot Air and thought we needed a new post.
(edited to make it more clear and to fix some spelling problems)