Republican voter celebrates Republican government shut-down efforts.
I was wrong, and the mainstream pundits were right. Republicans have finally released their sensible, cooperative plan to "fix" the Affordable Care Act. It is helpfully explained by Jonathan Chait in his post titled:
"Republicans Begin Planning to Nuke Filibuster and Repeal Obamacare":
Conservatives continue to rage against Obamacare, and their capacity to oppose it, unlike their capacity to prevent same-sex marriage, has not fully expired. The strategy of attempting to destroy Obamacare through far-fetched lawsuits has run its course, but Republicans can still have normal political methods at their disposal should they regain power. They have come to focus their energies on the remaining path to obtain this goal, which runs through the final destruction of the Senate filibuster.
Steve Benen further reports that this detailed Republican "fix" is also gaining support among the Republican candidates:
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Friday he’s open to eliminating the Senate’s 60-vote threshold if it helps Congress repeal Obamacare and enact “free-market oriented” health care reforms.
. . . . The Washington Examiner reported over the weekend that Gov. Scott Walker (R) was even more enthusiastic about the strategy. Asked if he’d call for the end of legislative filibusters in order to “repeal Obamacare,” the Wisconsin Republican replied, “Yes. Absolutely.”
. . . For some Republican leaders, there should apparently be two governing standards: one for Democrats, which is arduous, and one for the GOP, which is easier and more straightforward.
The thing is that this is not just about the Affordable Care Act. Consider, as just one example, former-governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee explaining this Sunday that states don't have to obey the Supreme Court marriage ruling unless and until they pass their own "enabling legislation." As Steve Benen
again explains:
There won’t be “enabling legislation.” The Supreme Court majority has ruled. There is now clarity as to the marriage rights Americans are entitled to. Those rights apply right now – it’s not as if Congress is rushing back into session to consider whether or not the Supreme Court’s ruling is actually going to be applied nationwide. Huckabee seems to be under the impression that our system requires lawmakers and the White House to somehow sign off on the decision in order for it take effect.
Let's talk like adults. All through the Obama administration years - whether by imposing a permanent filibuster, now threatening to remove filibusters, repeated government shutdowns (sometimes with no articulated demand), debt ceiling threats, refusing to confirm executive or judicial nominees, the "Boehner rule" or, now, promising to ignore Supreme Court decisions - the Southern dominated Republicans have been open about their approach: they are (again) seceding from the notion of a national government. And, notably, they are not hiding or obfuscating their position.
Indeed, rather than a second Civil War, the current state has been accurately described as a new "Cold Civil War."
So . . . like the prior inanity of reading the press endlessly debate a Republican "fix" to the ACA that Republicans themselves were not even pretending to offer, why is the mainstream press pretending that this openly-stated Republican position is not happening? What reasoning makes today's journalists deliberately ignore the big story in front of their face, and instead pretend that nothing remarkable and unbalanced is happening? How did it become "rude" to acknowledge what Republicans are openly saying themselves?
Consider that after Mike Huckabee made statements on This Week that should disqualify him from any serious consideration as a presidential candidate, ABC-TV's Mathew Dowd instead said:
DOWD: . . And I think part of the problem that we've had here today is the people of faith don't feel respected in where they sit and where they stand. And the people that are on the pluralistic side don't feel a sense of compassion and understanding from the people of faith in this country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you bridge that?
Excuse me. I've not heard any gay American hint that he or she would not abide by an unfavorable Supreme Court marriage decision. I've not heard a single national Democratic politician suggest that folks should disregard Supreme Court decisions like
Citizens United that are disagreeable to Democrats. There is no artificial "bridge" to cross. There is no false-equivalency,
and not even Republicans are arguing otherwise.
So, why are so many people (particularly journalists) invested in pretending that the modern Republican party is not a radical, outlier party, including by historical terms?
***
I've said this before, but I would love if there are any professional journalists in the DailyKos community who could address, dispute, or explain the state of modern journalism on these points.