« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Lisa Murkowski Opposes Repeal of Obamacare

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  July 13th, 2010 at 10:40 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

One of the countless reasons I’m supporting Joe Miller in Alaska? His opponent, pro-abortion senator Lisa Murkowski, opposes repeal of Obamacare because . . . wait for it . . . if it gets repealed then we’ve done nothing to address healthcare.

Oh, she doesn’t like Medicare cuts either.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Swamp_Yankee

    This just proves that a replacement bill is needed.

    Just repealing the bill sounds good at conservative rallies, but it is a non-starter without the “replace”. Repealing ObamaCare will require some moderate Republicans and/or Blue Dogs and they will want substantive health care reform.

  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/ reaganiterepublicanresistance

    “Repeal ObamaCare” is really a litmus test for me… I don’t know how anyone offering anything less can be considered a conservative, because they’re not

    ——Give em Hell Joe—–

  • mikerazar

    I’d prefer a quick repeal, but that is hard to imagine before 2013. Realistically, before that, all that can be done is to starve the funding or cripple it with carefully drafted amendments. Even that is subject to veto until 2013.

    We have yet to win a single seat in November. Why continue to roil the waters with arguments of no practical significance?

    By all means, support Joe Miller. But we don’t need to make tactical disagreements into wedge issues.

  • http://www.rightklik.net rightklik

    GOP majority in congress…good. Conservative majority in congress…much, much better

  • mikestephens

    All over the country, GOP primaries are showing that the constitution matters. Joe should win this big. Hopefully Delaware will follow with the defeat of Castle. The GOP is being returned to conservatism by the TEA parties.

  • fpete13527

    Murkowski is now in the full ranks of the Trigger Sisters and Charlie Crist.

    Obamacare had to be forced through illegally because it is truly the crown jewel that the Dem Socialist Party has intricately designed and planned for…for years and years – for Socialism, not medical care.

    As we all know, the Bill has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare, but it has EVERYTHING to do with SOCIALIZED government…..but not just a little bit of socialized government….but rather massive, intricate amounts.

    Although the Bill is pure scum, this Bill…ALONE…gives the Dem/Socialists 80% or more of ALL the communism agenda that they want – to include empowerment to abortion, unions, changes in education, growth of govt., social engineering and death panels, changes in information management, desecration of private business, etc, etc, etc,

    It is very easy to offer a solution to begin to reform healthcare and there are already proposals……BUT you DONT put those proposals in until this detrimental bill is COMPLELTEY incinerated…..a nd it CAN be incinerated if we put people in that will fight…..and throw people OUT… like Murkowkski

  • acat

    Liberal has a couple specific meanings – you appear to be using it as a pejorative, which is fine by me… but.

    What’s infesting the GOP aren’t precisely “liberal”. I’d say instead that some of the GOP wing of the Repubs are a bunch of fools who believe the Dems will let ‘em run the big machines, others have been in D.C. so long they’ve become convinced it’s the real world, and “flyover country” is a myth.. Some never were conservatives, instead being in it for themselves…

    But yeah, using the “Liberal” tag makes it much simpler if less accurate.

    Mew

  • acat
  • jmadisonfan

    when, as recent polling suggests, a clear majority of Americans favor REPEAL??? Join the squishes if you like, but I will be fighting for and supporting those candidates who appear to be hearing and following the will of the people. All recent polling indicates that a majority of Americans do not like the road that Washington has put us on with increased fiscal burdens, government control of every aspect of our lives and redistribution of our hard earned money. Any incumbent Repub squish who chooses to ignore this will find themselves unemployed after Nov.

  • tngal

    Not tweaking, not patching, not taking out the odd line here or there. . Repeal first, then do something right starting with tort reform. Much like immigration. No amnesty first – then discussions can start. Although after no amnesty, the laws on the books pretty much do the job.

  • chihank

    others join Miller’s campaign effort. So far, Miller has Redstate, Palin, and Tea Party Express on his side. But he needs more help. If Freedom Works & Club For Growth join the fray, then Miller would be in business for a competitive primary.

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Brown/178795233167

  • earlgrey

    Are people leaving mean comments on his facebook page?

  • Swamp_Yankee

    after he votes with Dems, but its not really representative of the state. His numbers are sky high in Mass.

  • earlgrey

    Here is my thing. they are getting everything they want. They don’t care about 2010 and a few dumb little sheep who voted their careers away. I don’t think anyone anticipates that tea party, republican, anti-government fever will last very long. Eventually, everyone will start to get by with less and see the govt. as a part of their lives, and not an impediment to it.

    If we are to be successful, it means a long term (years, generation) commitment. I am up for it, but when I see Sharon Angles numbers drop while Reid’s rise, than I think maybe the left is right. The people will get over this anger and move on.

  • mikerazar

    How does anyone propose appealing it before 2013? Meanwhile is it not more important to cripple it, or at least modify it?

    The reason I call it a fight on the right or a wedge issue is because it is not worth arguing about and yet it divides the anti-Obama forces.

    Why is it squishy to acknowledge that the only parts of the bill enjoying wide support are the catastrophic care features as exemplified by the no pre-existing conditions ban?

    Am I a squish for thinking that stopping the progressives’ attempts to destroy our Republic and its Constitution takes priority over and is more important than any single feature of the conservative principles I support?

  • Swamp_Yankee

    The pendulum will swing back and forth. No political movement is self-sustaining. People get bored, they’ll need a new scapegoat.

    Its is a generationsl war and the primary front is not politics. Hoping a new crop of Republicans can effectuate change is misguided. They wont. All they can do is stem the tide. And in his Blue corner of the map, Brown is contributing to that cause. What was once a liberal bastion of security is now battlefield on the open plain.

  • rdelbov

    to defend Lisa M.–I can only prop up Jane Norton here.

    Not a real big fan of Lisa M for that matter.

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    Now some libs are hitting his page asking for his support on the DISCLOSE act.

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    “Hoping a new crop of Republicans can effectuate change is misguided”

    History bears this out as well. Thomas E. Woods knows of a solution and its the only one that will save us from the DISCLOSE act and lame duck congressional legislation such as cap-and-trade and immigration reform. We can ignore it, but nothing else will end the problem fast enough.

  • SirGladiator

    The most important point of all is apparently being overlooked, and that is not simply that Murkowski is opposing repeal of Obamacare, but rather that she is opposing repeal of Obamacare DURING A GOP PRIMARY, a time when candidates generally sound more Conservative than at any other time. If even during this time, during a GOP Primary race in Conservative Alaska, she is unwilling to support repealing Obamacare, imagine what she will be saying if she wins the Primary, and has six more years to do anything she wants. We definitely need to elect Conservative Joe Miller, in fact I’d say replacing Murkowski with Miller is going to have about the same effect in terms of moving the Senate to the right as it will when we replace Senator Lincoln of Arkansas in November. It’ll be a very significant upgrade indeed!

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    Oklahoma, Florida, and Arizona have state constiutional amendments on the ballot in November basically neutering ObamaCare by nullifying the individual mandate. Then there is legislation in many other states at various stages, and symbolic resolutions. The solution is simple – coordinate enough states to nullify the law.

  • mikerazar

    My problem is only with demands for a single strategy of repeal because it means doing nothing until 2013.

    Of course we should do everything we can to cripple the bill between now and then. Nullification is a great idea too, but when has it worked in the past? Maybe in 1798.

    Besides, the individual mandate isn’t even the worst feature of the bill (IMHO). The worst is the almost limitless power it gives to amoral bureaucrats to make decisions about American health care in the future.

    Introducing a repeal bill in 2011 may have symbolic merit, but it shouldn’t divide the right. Murkowski went way further by disagreeing with the desirability of repeal. “Repeal and replace” is not the same as “no repeal”. I hope Joe Miller beats her in the primary, but if he doesn’t, she is still better than any sitting Democrat.

  • JSobieski

    This nothing can happen until 2013 logic is true whether you talk repeal or replace. Obama is going to use a veto either way, So your logic says we shouldn’t do anything until then? Repeal is hardly a slogan for doing nothing until 2013. Building and sustaining a movement takes time and attention.

    If you want to repeal and/or replace in 2013, you have to keep the momentum building until then. Rome didn’t fall in a day, and neither will Obamacare. It will take a concerted effort over more than 1 election cycle to do it.

    In that sense, repeal is no different than replace,

  • mikerazar

    the question is whether it makes more sense politically to fight between now and November of 2012 on a repeal only platform, or to offer clear sensible alternative solutions to the perceived problems in health care. If we can point to our superior ideas which improve health care while strengthening the free market system, it undercuts the “anything is better than what we have” nonsense spewed by progressives.

    It has always seemed to me that Republicans underplay the bureaucracy card. Americans hate arbitrary rules and don’t like being told what to do. The recess appointment of Dr. Berwick is a good thing. He won’t be able to resist making stupid ideological decisions which many voters will hate.If the Republicans can offer a sound alternative which has no czars and death panels in a one hundred page bill, the American people will love it.

  • JSobieski

    But trying to fix Obamacare is nuts. I am a lawyer by profession, and I can tell you that it is far harder to create a fair contract starting from a bad draft contract than it is a clean sheat of paper.

    Repeal and Replace is fine with me. Repeal is also fine with me. Fix? Fix is DISASTER,

    I,e, True replacement REQUIRES repeal.

    The best way to counter the “anything is better” nonsense is to counter it with reasons, not allow it to impact the proposed course of action.

  • JSobieski

    You seem reluctant to support repeal on the basis of straw men arguments:
    (1) nobody is saying do nothing else
    (2) nobody is saying don’t have a conservative vision of health care reform

    As Thatcher said, you have to win the argument before you win the votes.

  • mikerazar

    My first choice is a straight repeal, the sooner the better. But my inner cynic tells me that without offering a positive alternative, that isn’t a great campaign issue. Since neither repeal nor repeal and replace seems likely before 2013, we need an interim strategy. Starve the beast looks like the best we can do (no funding).

    Let me also emphasize that I believe an attack on untrammeled bureaucratic discretion and a proper discussion of death panels and Dr. Berwick can be great campaign issues.