You two seem to have missed what I was saying...
Obama could, and would,ultimately win any legal fight. But taking that kind of stance as to his main justification for such a major restructuring of the American health care system would only throw more fuel onto the fire of an already highly charged controversy, especially once the lofty principals being espoused start clashing with lackluster results and unpopular consquences. That's bad for the popularity and sustainability of the program in the long run, especially if some of the court cases do end up selectively striking down parts of the Act as unconstitutional or are obliged to openly say that, no, Health Care is not a legally guranteed right since the question has been begged
Again, you seem to be conflating the means by which he engenders public support for the act and the actual text of it. At that point in time, it's my belief that most Americans would've responded positively to Obama referring to healthcare as a human right (not a legally guaranteed right, but an issue of national morality). Now you have a point in saying that ultimately, the text not reflecting such a statement could prove problematic for public support and the sustainability of Obamacare, but the courts trying to strike down bits and pieces of it has little to do with the rhetoric surrounding it. I also think that, if you're saying Obama would ultimately win any legal fight on the issue, he's likely to not only preserve the legislation but expand on it after a solid Supreme Court victory wherein the Court rejects any lower court notions that health care isn't legally guaranteed. Not that I think the court would argue that it is guaranteed, but I have a hard time seeing a majority agreeing with the assertion that it is explicitly not (or could not be).
snip
I see what you're saying, but I bring you back to your earlier statement that Obama could/would win any legal fight about it, ultimately. If that is the case, I don't truly see this aspect having much meaningful impact. It might (and probably would) make Obama much more vulnerable to losing reelection, but that wasn't really the point here.
I guess my ultimate point is this: if Obama were to adopt that rhetoric, it ultimately hinders rather than helps the long-term survival of the ACA as it both undermines Democratic authority in general, increases its vulernability to legal challanges, and will reduce the dedication of the Party to make sacrifices and fight hard for it in general.
I can agree to that, in general. Though my initial point was less about long term and more short term.
Ooh, hot take.Perhaps AOC would be a better comparison for what the OP wants: young, aggressive, and willing to *fight* for the actual needs of working people.
I can agree to that, in general. Though my initial point was less about long term and more short term.
The mathmatically challenged part (IE the relevent part in terms of transferable temperment) is yet relevent, if not extensively more so.
Really? I think your overestimating how racist America is.If Obama were like Bernie Sanders, he’d be dismissed as an angry black man and have no hope for the 2008 nomination.
Really? I think your overestimating how racist America is.
Barack sr was just as surprised as you years ago, that was probably one of the reasons for the divorce.You mean old, white and mathematically challenged?
I mean, we could get into a thing about the irony of her critics saying that while we pile endless sums into the gaping maw of the military-industrial complex, or how an actual government welfare system would be cheaper than the semi-private grift we have now, or even how the biggest wasteful expenditure is the surplus value siphoned off by the capitalist class from every single worker in the country...but that would be present-day politics, and best saved for Chat.
I feel like he could have pushed single payer healthcare through without being labeled “socialist”.It's not just a function of racism, unfortunately. It's also simple hidebound rigidity. Obama received mountains of acclaim and adulation from 2002 to 2009 because he was slick, charismatic, and, most of all, unchallenging in terms of policy. Oh, sure, he opposed Iraq early, but that was a more popular position among Democrats than was obvious at the time. If he'd pushed for a federal jobs guarantee or free college or, god forbid, dared to call himself a socialist, then that would force his audiences to think, to question the way things were. Far easier to label him the next Malcolm X or Jesse Jackson and hustle him off to the sidelines instead, and keep looking for someone with the same superficial appeal, but who won't rock the boat.