GOP Will Repeal Health Reform Just Like Obama “Ended” the Iraq War

The pattern on GOP healthcare messaging is set. From now until the election, we'll wake up to a headline saying that healthcare won't be repealed, and by the end of the day the Senate leadership will be assuring RedState.com they are "committed to the repeal message."

It looks like the pattern on Republican healthcare messaging is set. From now until the election, we'll wake up to at least one headline saying that healthcare won't be repealed, and by the end of the day the Senate leadership will be assuring RedState.com that they are "committed to the repeal message."

Your headline of the day is courtesy of Bob Corker and the Nashville Business Journal: “Corker: Health reform won't be repealed”

Read downwards and you get this.

In the immediate aftermath of the reform’s passage, many of Corker’s Republican colleagues, including 2008 presidential contender Sen. John McCain, have pledged to repeal the legislation. Corker described that as unlikely, given the reality of needing 67 votes in the Senate to overcome a presidential veto of repeal legislation.

“The fact is that’s not going to happen, OK?” Corker told dozens of people at Vanderbilt University.

Still, Corker made clear his opposition to the legislation and spoke in favor of continued, incremental legislative reform in future years to correct problems he foresees.

Now, obviously, the senators that are allegedly "pledged to repeal" also know that they will not have 67 votes in the Senate to override.  There is, in fact, a bit more nuance in the "repeal message".  Repeal actually means a whole bunch of things that are not repeal; court challenges, forcing hard votes on defunding the unpopular parts of the legislation, etc.  Just as "ending the Iraq war" after the 2006 elections involved a bunch of things that did not, in fact, end the Iraq war, so shall the Republicans do in 2011.

On the other hand, we could do what Bob Corker (and FrumForum) wants, and try and correct the bill instead of impeding it.  But there is an argument against that, from a cynical perspective.  Question: Would the Democrats have won even bigger in 2006 and 2008 if, instead of pledging to repeal the Iraq War, they instead ran on a message of fixing it?  In other words, going with Candidate Kaus's "against the war, but for the surge" stance?

Probably not so much.

So, I'm forced to think the double game that Republican senators are playing with RedState.com and the mainstream press is pretty much the right way to go, and I fully support it.