Fewer Dems to fight for ObamaCare |
Featured Commentary

Fewer Dems to fight for ObamaCare

There were 60 Democrats in the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009 when they voted in lockstep to pass the Affordable Care Act. Soon there will be 46 Democrats in the Senate, or perhaps 47 if Sen. Mary Landrieu manages to eke out a win in Louisiana.

In plain numbers, the post-ObamaCare trajectory has not been good for Senate Democrats.

The 46 or 47 Democrats in the next Senate are a bit different from the group that passed ObamaCare. Sixteen of them took office after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. They never had to vote for it and have never had to defend voting for it.

Are those post-ObamaCare Democrats as strongly opposed to changing the law as their colleagues who voted for it? Or are they possibly a little less personally invested in staving off challenges? It’s a question that will be tested in coming months.

To make fundamental changes in ObamaCare, Senate Republicans will have to muster 60 votes, which means — if the GOP has 54 — they will need to find six Democrats to go along. Of course, even if six or more Democrats join Republicans to pass ObamaCare-related measures, the president can still veto them. But he would have to overturn the will of a supermajority in Congress. Maybe that will give him pause. Or maybe not.

Some Democrats, and some outside observers, have tried to convince themselves that ObamaCare did not play a central role in the 2014 campaign. That would come as a surprise to the newly elected Republican senators who campaigned on a pledge to repeal ObamaCare. And it would also come as a surprise to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader-elect Mitch McConnell, who in the second paragraph of their joint post-election article in The Wall Street Journal said the voters’ decision “means renewing our commitment to repeal ObamaCare.”

What’s unclear is the timing of the Republican move to repeal ObamaCare — which will not succeed — and then efforts to strip away parts of the law, which may find some success.

Also in the mix: the jaw-dropping statements by ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber. So far, Republicans are still trying to digest and figure out how best to use Gruber’s frank admissions that he and fellow Democrats deceived the public on the nature of ObamaCare during its passage in 2009 and 2010. House GOP lawmakers were expected to discuss the Gruber revelations but never got around to it after long talks on immigration and the budget.

At the very least, Gruber’s words give Republicans a new basis to emphasize what they’ve been saying for a long time. Back in May, McConnell said that Obama “sold (ObamaCare) to us on a mountain of lies.” A year ago, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio wrote that “ObamaCare’s passage was built on a foundation of lies.” Now, they and other Republicans can provide striking new evidence.

But the question always comes back to those moderate Democrats. Could the election results, plus new leadership in the Senate, plus damaging revelations like Gruber’s and the party’s downward trajectory since passing ObamaCare, influence enough moderates to join Republicans?

January could be the start of a new phase in the years-long ObamaCare war.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.