Mitt hates Obamacare, but supports everything IN it. This would make a great 2010 election ad.

Run time: 00:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fsm7em3WWY   Posted on YouTube: April 08, 2010 By YouTube Member: ThinkProgress2 Views on YouTube: 496   Posted on DU: April 12, 2010 By DU Member: TrollBuster9090 Views on DU: 498

 
So, what would I like to see running in the Democratic election ads next October? How about Democratic party ads showing Mitt supporting Obamacare running back to back with Republican party ads showing Mitt opposing Obamacare?

Then, as a footnote, they can post the Kaiser Foundation's comparison of the 1993 Republican counterproposal to Hilarycare, which was written by the Heritage Foundation, and co-sponsored by 20 Republican Congressmen, about 15 of whom are still in Congress. The two plans (Republican plan of 1993 and Obama law of 2010) are almost identical, meaning that those 15 Republican Congressmen now oppose the same plan they supported in 1993, they're got some 'splaining to do.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

and that will make him look even worse in the process.

who co-sponsored the Republican alternative to Hilarycare in 1993, which is virtually identical to Obamacare. The Kaiser Foundation compares the 1993 Republican health care plan to the one that just passed, and you can't see any daylight between them.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

...an embryonic 2012 presidential candidate.

Obamacare is just a xerox of Romneycare. Why vote for republican lite, when you can have the real thing.


I'm just sayin.

Good point but the Republicans are planning to run on a "repeal and replace" platform. Obamacare has already passed and become law. So, at this point it's not a question of voting for Republican lite or real Republican, it's a question of what would they do differently, and (more importantly) just how hypocritical and two faced are Republicans.

This ad would go a long way to proving what we already know, that Republicans are two faced, and will either say they support or oppose anything for the singular purpose of getting elected.

They've already tried to float the idea that if you vote for them they'll repeal Obamacare. That talking point lasted about five mintues until all but the stupidest talking point consumers realized that they can't reapeal it without Obama's signature on the bill, and he'd veto it. Then they moved on to the talking point that if they got 2/3 of the Senate and House they could override the veto, until David Frum (of all people) simply pointed out that if they won EVERY SINGLE SENATE SEAT that's up for grabs in 2010, they still wouldn't have 2/3. So now they've moved on to the Gingrich talking point that if Republicans get the majority in Congress, they'll "simply refuse to fund" the Obama initiatives. Now we have to combat that lie with the obvious truth that, if Obamacare is revenue neutral (or better--revenue positive) Congress can't stop funding it.

So, the strategy for the GOP is to claim they'll either repeal or refuse to fund Obamacare. The Dem strategy has to be to get the following points out:


1. If the GOP were in power, they'd probably pass something similar anyway. They already tried to in 1993 with the Heritage Foundation alternative to Hilarycare, and they already DID in Mass, when Mitt was governor.

2. They can't repeal it without Obama's signature, and he'd veto a repeal bill.

3. They can't override his veto because it's mathematically impossible for them to get enough Senators.

4. They can't refuse to fund Obamacare because it's revenue neutral (at worst) and revenue positive (at best).