Republicans Have Not Stopped Campaigning Against Obamacare



There's a somewhat odd notion going around that Republicans have dropped the campaign against Obamacare. The New York Times, for example, reported at the end of last week that, "Republican attacks on the health care law dominated the early months of the campaign, but now have largely receded from view." 

That's true only if you're not looking.

Obamacare was the number one issue for Republican Senate races between October 13 and 19, as Jeffrey Anderson points out at The Weekly Standard. Anderson cites research by Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group indicating that the GOP pumped out almost 12,000 ads on the health law that week. You won't be surprised to learn that they weren't in favor of the law. Obamacare was the top issue for Republican ads the week prior as well, with a similar number of GOP ads in opposition.

It's true that Obamacare is less of an issue, relatively speaking, than it was last year at this time, when the launch and failure of the exchanges dominated the news. It's also true that several Republicans have tripped up trying to talk about the law recently, saying that major components are not connected to or part of the law. Compared with six or eight months ago, Republicans are also probably focusing a little more on general opposition to Obama and less to Obamacare.

But it's not the case that Republicans are avoiding the issue, or that it has mostly disappeared from discussion. To the extent that they are campaigning on or against any particular policy at all, it's opposition to Obamacare. 

NEXT: Police Warnings Save Children From Pot-Laced Halloween Treats Once Again

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Common Core and the (un)SAFE Act are loudest in NY – because our insurance regs were so batshit insane before that the individual market had undergone its death spiral already.

    1. What is the SAFE act again? Gun control?

      1. Yes, a badly written, ambiguous gun-grabbing mess that gave us the ‘seven in ten’ rule and banned ‘muzzle breaks’

        1. God, I hope it banned teh scary Assault Rifles, too!

          Also – PISTOL GRIPS!!!

          *shakes visibly*

  2. To be sure, it’s been fairly apparent that the GOP is deferring the fight on some issues until it captures the Senate. The only question is whether any of those issues will be important ones or just the usual awarding their cronies instead of the Democrats’.

  3. Once they start talking about fixing the law, then you know you’re in trouble.

    1. Fix nothing. Destroy. With fire.

      1. Look, we obviously need to remove the law so we can have an accurate baseline to see if the next round of fixes work. It would be unfair and wrong to force the President to be weighed down with the old, bad law, right?

        1. Exactly. In fact, what we really need to fairly assess the actual needs of the new law is to restore the free market baseline as a temporary measure.

        2. We have to revoke it because we found out what was in it?

    2. “Fixin’ the law!
      Fixin’ the LAW!

      *guitar chords*

      Fixin’ the law!
      Fixin’ the LAW!

      *guitar chords*”

      /Judas Priest

      1. Thanks for the earworm.

        1. What, you don’t like Breaking the Law?

          Someone should do a song called “White Suburban Punk Like Me,” which includes the line, “Let’s get sushi and not pay.” From a CD entitled, “Plate o’ Shrimp.”

  4. No, fuck you, cut spending.

  5. http://www.nationalreview.com/…..-john-fund

    Looks like the Dems might dump Reid as minority leader if they lose the Senate. That sounds like good news until you realize his replacement is likely to be Chuck Schummer.

    The funny thing is that Reid stuck it to the Democrats in the Senate to cover for Obama’s sorry ass. Reid protected Obama by keeping every popular amendment or bill that Obama was likely to veto from coming to a vote in the Senate. This meant Senate Democrats up for election this year didn’t have to cast votes Obama didn’t like and it allowed the media to paint all opposition to Obama as Republican partisanship. That worked great for Obama. It hasn’t worked so well for the Democrats in the Senate because it deprived them of the opportunity to show independence from a deeply unpopular President. So, all of them got hammered with ads saying they voted with Obama 96% or sometimes 100% of the time.

  6. You know what I really want out of a GOP controlled Senate and House?

    I want those damn fake scandals, in particular Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal to be fully investigated, prosecuted, and I want to see the people involved actually go to prison.

    If the GOP can do that, then I’ll take it a little easier on them for all of the stupid things that they will most assuredly do.

    1. That alone would be something. I’d like to see some truth and consequences.

      1. I’d like to see some truth and consequences

        What’s that? Truth and reconciliation, you say? Why yes, we’ll start handing out pardons and immunity right away! /future GOP

        1. If you don’t grant immunity, people have no reason to talk. Granting immunity, however, allows criminals to walk away unpunished.

          The question becomes what is more important, justice or finding out the truth. It is a tough call.

          If the GOP were smart, and I doubt they are, they would refuse to confirm a new AG until Lerner is indicted for contempt of Congress and until all outstanding Congressional Subpoenas are complied with. That would be a good start.

          1. If the GOP was smart, they would immunize and subpoena the low-level employees and slowly build a case against the higher ups, who you indict. My guess though is they’ll hand out immunity to people like Lerner and throw the IT guys in jail.

            1. If they were going to hand immunity to Lerner, they would have already done it. There are enough former prosecutors in the GOP caucus to keep them from being that stupid. You can’t hand someone immunity until their attorney gives you a proffer of what they know. And Lerner won’t do that. If you give her immunity, she will just get up there and lie and take responsibility for the whole thing.

              Lerner is a craven bitch who is happy to tell the Congress and the country to fuck off because she figures there is no price to be paid for doing it. Change that and put her ass under the threat of jail for contempt and she will start talking.

    2. Obama controls the veto and Democrats are unlikely to vote to override his veto. So there is very little a Republican Congress can do other than limit the damage.

      They can, however, get to the bottom of some of this shit. And that is important. The other thing they need to do is not confirm some mindless hack to be AG. Leave the position vacant if they have to.

  7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Have some yummy Rachel Maddow hysteria and tears. What is funny is that even she can’t explain exactly what horrors await the country ruled by a Republican Senate other than Ruth Bader Ginsberg might retire and her replacement might not be acceptable.

  8. You know what Boner’s gonna say tomorrow if the R’s take the House AND the Senate:

    “Livin’ after midnight!

    Rockin’ to the dawn!

    Lovin’ ’til the mornin’!

    Then I’m gone!

    I’m GONE!”

    /Rob HalBonerford

    1. Seeing as it is Bonher we are talking about:

      Hell bent, hell bent for leather (skin)…

  9. I can’t decide if I can’t lose, or can’t win, on tomorrow’s results:

    On the can’t lose side, either the Dems or going to get handed a crushing defeat, or the Repubs are going to throw away a major opportunity. Whichever party loses, their party HQ will be running with blood.

    On the can’t win side, either the Dems are going to be validated in their crony/proggy Obama uber alles approach to governing, or the Repub establishment is going to be vindicated in their gutless approach to politicking. Whichever party wins will continue on with business as usual.

    1. One person’s gutless surrender is another person’s reasonable compromise. The problem is that the GOP Establishment is not totally wrong. There isn’t a solid Libertarian majority in this country. And no amount of wishful thinking and principled losses will make it so.

  10. Why does the GOP have a .gov domain? I guess legislators are immune from the Hatch Act, but is it really that hard to register a .org and pay for it yourselves?

  11. “It’s true that Obamacare is less of an issue, relatively speaking, than it was last year at this time, when the launch and failure of the exchanges dominated the news”

    And if the Obama adminstration had not pushed back the start of the annual enrollment period past the election date this year, it would be just as much of an issue this year.

  12. Why exactly does the GOP get a .gov domain?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.