Begun, The War On Conservatives Has (Shapiro)

[INVAR]

This conservative bolted the Republican party the exact moment they ran roughshod over their own rules at the latest national convention and I have no intention to ever return.

I did that back when Boehner did the same thing at the Convention in 2012.

If we want Constitutional Conservatism to survive, then we need to bolt the party that intends to obliterate it while folding into the Democrat Uniparty that they are.

[corbe]

Call me a RINO then and I will wear the label with pride!  I long believed that the easiest path to a conservative party was to take over the republican party from within. I was wrong about that!

   I argued that exact thing at many a Tea party meeting when they suggested 'we' should start a NEW Party, and Trump proved us right @Bigun the GOP was ripe for picking any idiot could have done IT!

[Bigun]

   I argued that exact thing at many a Tea party meeting when they suggested 'we' should start a NEW Party, and Trump proved us right @Bigun the GOP was ripe for picking any idiot could have done IT!

I spent 40+ years in the belly of the beast trying and we DID manage to transform things in Texas but no luck at the national level!

[Sanguine]

Except for a fleeting period in the 1980's the Republican Party never was synonymous with conservatism.

This is why "RiNO" is such an asinine acronym.

Good morning, @Right_in_Virginia.  I hope your day is going well. 

[Cripplecreek]

   I argued that exact thing at many a Tea party meeting when they suggested 'we' should start a NEW Party, and Trump proved us right @Bigun the GOP was ripe for picking any idiot could have done IT!

Its why I consider myself to be a federalist.

[EasyAce]

@Bigun the GOP was ripe for picking any idiot could have done IT!

@corbe
Any idiot did. ;)

[GrouchoTex]

I'm not attacking conservatives, I'm attacking the idiots in the Freedom Caucus, unwilling to say yes to conservative repair of the ACA.     We won't get this chance again.   

Why is everyone saying we won't get this chance again?
Just because Trump says so?

What if tomorrow a better bill than this last one came out, and passed the house and senate, are you saying Trump wouldn't sign it?
Last time I checked, the House can propose any bill it wants, whether the President likes it or not.

If he vetoes it, what would that tell you?
It tells that the chorus of people here are right, and he is only about "winning" or the appearance of it.

If Trump signs it, they would be wrong, but if it was a good bill, that gets the Federal Government out of the business of healthcare, we'd all be happy to be wrong.

[GrouchoTex]

It's funny the way @Jazzhead thinks that the freedom caucus alone managed to stop this grand bill that only 17% of the country supported. Despite Rand Paul saying that it was DOA on arrival in the Senate. It's also funny the way he wants to give up on the first try as if we will never have a chance to work out a better solution. Liberals are so cute at that age.

 

[Jazzhead]

It's funny the way @Jazzhead thinks that the freedom caucus alone managed to stop this grand bill that only 17% of the country supported. Despite Rand Paul saying that it was DOA on arrival in the Senate. It's also funny the way he wants to give up on the first try as if we will never have a chance to work out a better solution. Liberals are so cute at that age.

Political capital is limited, and the Dems' resistance means that only legislation that unites the GOP caucus can pass.  I see no reason to take up the ACA anytime soon, given the unwillingness of the rump factions to support party leadership.     

[EasyAce]

I see no reason to take up the ACA anytime soon, given the unwillingness of the rump factions to support party leadership.   

So what does one do when a party leadership is heading toward an abyss?

[goatprairie]

This seems dead on to me. A lot of magical thinking was applied to Trump to create something that wasn't there. Trump has been pretty clear who he was all along but "conservatives" wanted a "fighter", someone who will "get things done", "the wall", etc. and that overrode the reality of all those "little" inconsistencies that so many were willing to overlook chasing their illusion.

Reality always wins.

Hillary was worse for sure. But Republicans own this one.

You are correct. I voted for Trump to avoid Hillary but knowing at some point I'd hear the dreaded words "we have to work with Democrats."  That could mean anything, and given Trump's past (and present) liberal leanings, a whole lot of bad things.
I thought he'd push this Frankenstein health-care bill hard, and when it failed, blame everybody but himself. That's his nature... The Donald is never wrong.

[Doug Loss]

Political capital is limited, and the Dems' resistance means that only legislation that unites the GOP caucus can pass.  I see no reason to take up the ACA anytime soon, given the unwillingness of the rump factions to support party leadership.   

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that congressmen are supposed to follow the orders of their "leaders" and not to represent the wishes of the voters who sent them to Congress.  When the leaders present them with something supportable, I'm sure they'll support it.  When presented with AHCA, they did what was proper and rejected it.

[geronl]

Trump and Ryan gave conservatives a golden opportunity to be part of the solution,  and the Freedom Caucus demurred.

No they didn't. Their input was ignored. They weren't even allowed to see the bill for a while, then they weren't allowed to make changes or offer amendments. This was Obama and Pelosi all over again.

[Jazzhead]

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that congressmen are supposed to follow the orders of their "leaders" and not to represent the wishes of the voters who sent them to Congress. 

In a perfect world, sure.  But reality is that the GOP needed to pass reform with the support of both moderates and conservatives, knowing they'd get no help from "across the aisle".   So solidarity was essential - and since they didn't get it,  the question now is whether they should just move on to other issues.   Obviously, I'm frustrated with the Freedom Caucus, even as most here are cheering them for their obstructionism.   

[Doug Loss]

In a perfect world, sure.  But reality is that the GOP needed to pass reform with the support of both moderates and conservatives, knowing they'd get no help from "across the aisle".   So solidarity was essential - and since they didn't get it,  the question now is whether they should just move on to other issues.   Obviously, I'm frustrated with the Freedom Caucus, even as most here are cheering them for their obstructionism.

If the GOP leadership wanted the assistance of the Freedom Caucus, they should have given them input to the bill being proposed rather than the backs of their hands.  "Just follow our orders" isn't going to work with principled conservatives, no matter how hard you wish it would.

[Jazzhead]

No they didn't. Their input was ignored. They weren't even allowed to see the bill for a while, then they weren't allowed to make changes or offer amendments. This was Obama and Pelosi all over again.

Well, if I was able to see and study the darn bill,  why wasn't the Freedom Caucus?   

My understanding is that Trump was willing to give the FC a major change they sought -  elimination of the EHB requirements -  but that caused either caused moderates to balk, or else it still wasn't enough for the FC to sign on.  Maybe both.   I'm not sure of the details, but it appears that it was the attempt to address this FC demand that broke the camel's back.     

[Sanguine]

Well, if I was able to see and study the darn bill,  why wasn't the Freedom Caucus?   

My understanding is that Trump was willing to give the FC a major change they sought -  elimination of the EHB requirements -  but that caused either caused moderates to balk, or else it still wasn't enough for the FC to sign on.  Maybe both.   I'm not sure of the details, but it appears that it was the attempt to address this FC demand that broke the camel's back.   

The real question is: if you were able to see and read the bill why the hell did you ever support it?

[INVAR]

The real question is: if you were able to see and read the bill why the hell did you ever support it?

You know the answer to that.

He gave it himself when railing against the evils of repealing ObamaCare last month.

[Jazzhead]

The real question is: if you were able to see and read the bill why the hell did you ever support it?

Because it would have advanced conservative principles on a variety of fronts.

It would have immediately eliminated the mandates,  allowing employers to start hiring again,  and satisfying the rugged individualists who don't want to be "forced" to buy health insurance.

It would have eliminated the ACA subsidies,  improving the budgeting baseline and creating room for tax rate reductions that would spur economic growth.

It would have block-granted the Medicaid expansion,  placing for the first time an effective check on the growth of that program.   

These are all things conservatives would have gained from the AHCA.  Other changes could then be made to improve things further, such as providing for more choices in the marketplace.   Including changes to the EHB requirements, which should, I'd think, be fairly easy to address once the individual mandate is eliminated.   

[Sanguine]

Because it would have advanced conservative principles on a variety of fronts.

It would have immediately eliminated the mandates,  allowing employers to start hiring again,  and satisfying the rugged individualists who don't want to be "forced" to buy health insurance.

It would have eliminated the ACA subsidies,  improving the budgeting baseline and creating room for tax rate reductions that would spur economic growth.

It would have block-granted the Medicaid expansion,  placing for the first time an effective check on the growth of that program.   

These are all things conservatives would have gained from the AHCA.  Other changes could then be made to improve things further, such as providing for more choices in the marketplace.   Including changes to the EHB requirements, which should, I'd think, be fairly easy to address once the individual mandate is eliminated.   

It was a rhetorical question.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04

[Jazzhead]

It was a rhetorical question.

Perhaps, but it deserved a response.  The Freedom Caucus denied conservatives an opportunity that may not come again.   

[INVAR]

Because it would have advanced conservative principles on a variety of fronts.

It would have immediately eliminated the mandates,  allowing employers to start hiring again,  and satisfying the rugged individualists who don't want to be "forced" to buy health insurance.

It would have eliminated the ACA subsidies,  improving the budgeting baseline and creating room for tax rate reductions that would spur economic growth.

It would have block-granted the Medicaid expansion,  placing for the first time an effective check on the growth of that program.   

These are all things conservatives would have gained from the AHCA.  Other changes could then be made to improve things further, such as providing for more choices in the marketplace.   Including changes to the EHB requirements, which should, I'd think, be fairly easy to address once the individual mandate is eliminated.   

All of that is pure Bovine Scat.

It would have done NONE of those things in the long run and was nothing more than the GOP version of 'If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.  If you like your existing health plan, you can keep your health plan".

Big.  Fat.  Lies.

The part about using adjustments in baseline budgeting of the exponential ravenous beast to create room for tax rate reductions was particularly hilarious.

[Night Hides Not]

Here's my rhetorical question: if the bill did all that's been described here, why were less than 20% in favor of it?

Rhetorical question #2? Why weren't Ryan and the rest of his caucus working on "repeal and replace" starting on 11/9/16, and have the bill ready for President Trump's signature the day after the Inauguration?

[INVAR]

Here's my rhetorical question: if the bill did all that's been described here, why were less than 20% in favor of it?

Rhetorical question #2? Why weren't Ryan and the rest of his caucus working on "repeal and replace" starting on 11/9/16, and have the bill ready for President Trump's signature the day after the Inauguration?

Simple answer:

Kabuki Theater.

They never had any intention of repealing or replacing or 'fixing' Obamacare.

They want what Obamacare's entire existence will bring about, because they think it will give them the power and the control over the money that Single Payer will necessitate.

[Sanguine]

Perhaps, but it deserved a response.  The Freedom Caucus denied conservatives an opportunity that may not come again.

Whatever.  There's absolutely no reason it "may not come again".  You're hyperventilating.

And, what the FC did is to save Republicans from themselves.