GOP Strategists: Don’t Bet the House on Obamacare

Party insiders say a single-issue campaign could fall short in 2014.

A man walks under a banner marking the anniversary of 'ObamaCare' outside of the Republican National Committee office on March 23, 2012 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Alex Roarty
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Alex Roarty
Feb. 11, 2014, 6:40 a.m.

Re­pub­lic­ans have an in­vit­ing map, a fa­vor­able en­vir­on­ment, and a com­pet­it­ive lineup of can­did­ates as the 2014 elec­tion ap­proaches — the per­fect mix to ex­pand their House ma­jor­ity and take the Sen­ate. Now they just have to ask them­selves: Are they go­ing to bet it all on Obama­care?

So far, they are. The con­ser­vat­ive Amer­ic­ans for Prosper­ity has spent roughly $27 mil­lion on ads already this cycle, nearly every penny of which has tar­geted Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bents’ sup­port for the Af­ford­able Care Act. A spe­cial House elec­tion in Flor­ida, where the two parties are con­test­ing a swing dis­trict near St. Peters­burg, has wit­nessed one ad after an­oth­er tar­get­ing the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ee’s sup­port for the health care law. For con­ser­vat­ives es­pe­cially, tak­ing aim at Obama­care is an ir­res­ist­ible match of ex­pos­ing a polit­ic­al vul­ner­ab­il­ity while sat­is­fy­ing an ideo­lo­gic­al gripe.

Pres­id­ent Obama’s health care law is a tan­tal­iz­ing tar­get and should be part of any GOP can­did­ate’s cam­paign. But among some in the party’s polit­ic­al class, there’s also a nag­ging sense that Obama­care is not quite enough. Wheth­er con­cerned that the party bet big on Obama­care in 2012 with dis­astrous con­sequences or that a single is­sue — however po­tent — won’t per­suade enough voters, they’re warn­ing can­did­ates to do more than just harp on the Af­ford­able Care Act.

The ex­perts’ ad­vice: The party needs to turn its cri­ti­cism of Obama­care in­to a lar­ger cri­tique of Demo­crats, one that not only in­cludes oth­er is­sues but also makes a broad­er point about the fail­ures of big-gov­ern­ment lib­er­al­ism. Most im­port­ant, the GOP needs to show voters it has ideas of its own: With the party brand badly dam­aged, can­did­ates must demon­strate why they de­serve an­oth­er crack at power.

“What we need to do “¦ is to con­vince voters that we have the where­with­al and the ideas to fix is­sues, to put for­ward those solu­tions that can ad­dress those con­cerns,” said Danny Diaz, a Re­pub­lic­an strategist. “That is the core com­pon­ent of the ar­gu­ment and one I think you’re go­ing to see can­did­ates across [the] coun­try do to a great­er de­gree than they have be­fore.”

Some House Re­pub­lic­ans are already try­ing, pub­licly dis­cuss­ing their own pro­pos­als on im­mig­ra­tion and health care. Those amount to baby steps — they’re more guidelines than ac­tu­al le­gis­la­tion — but are part of a con­cer­ted ef­fort from GOP lead­er­ship to define what the party stands for. “It is in­cum­bent upon us, as an al­tern­at­ive party, not just an op­pos­i­tion party, to have ideas that we put for­ward that are groun­ded in mar­ket prin­ciples that will work,” Greg Walden, chair­man of the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al Com­mit­tee, said last week. “The point is, you need something pos­it­ive to run on.”

Oth­er GOP cam­paigns have already broadened their mes­sages. Mitch Mc­Con­nell, for in­stance, cri­ti­cizes his Demo­crat­ic foe Al­is­on Lun­der­gan Grimes for her po­s­i­tion on coal — an is­sue of par­tic­u­lar res­on­ance in Ken­tucky’s race. And at­tacks on Obama­care can of­fer GOP can­did­ates an open­ing to make a broad­er point about their op­pon­ent. Of­fi­cials at the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­ori­al Com­mit­tee ar­gue that Demo­crat­ic sen­at­ors who prom­ised all of their con­stitu­ents would be able to keep their health care plans now have a cred­ib­il­ity prob­lem. The GOP nom­in­ee in the Flor­ida spe­cial elec­tion said in an ad that his op­pon­ent’s sup­port for the law proves she’s just an­oth­er tax-and-spend lib­er­al.

“Just be­cause we’re talk­ing about Obama­care, and that’s a huge is­sue, “¦ that doesn’t mean we’re go­ing to erase dec­ades of how Re­pub­lic­ans run cam­paigns on taxes and spend­ing,” one GOP strategist said.

Still, not every Re­pub­lic­an is wor­ried that the party risks fo­cus­ing too much on the law. The is­sue cuts in­to so many con­cerns for voters — their own health care, the coun­try’s debt, and the eco­nomy — that it’s in­her­ently a broad-spec­trum at­tack. That case was bolstered this week when the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice pre­dicted the eco­nomy will lose the equi­val­ent of 2.5 mil­lion work­ers by 2024 be­cause few­er people will opt to work due to the health law.

“If James Carville were a Re­pub­lic­an, there’d be a sign hanging in his of­fice that said, ‘It’s Obama­care, stu­pid,’ ” said Glen Bol­ger, a GOP poll­ster. He ar­gued that Re­pub­lic­ans shouldn’t be wor­ried about dwell­ing too much on Obama­care; they should be wor­ried about not talk­ing about it enough.

“Yes, we do need more than just Obama­care,” he said. “But we don’t need a lot more.”

In a close race, however — and there could single-point battles every­where from Alaska to North Car­o­lina — the “more” that Bol­ger is talk­ing about could make the dif­fer­ence between win­ning and los­ing. And it’s why many Re­pub­lic­ans, as thrilled with the polit­ic­al gift of Obama­care as they are, aren’t ready to bet the house on it just yet.

Tim Alberta contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

FUNERAL FOR ISRAELI LEADER
Obama Compares Peres to ‘Giants of the 20th Century’
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Many New Voters Does the Clinton Campaign Aim to Register?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."

Source:
“STANDING FOR PRINCIPLES”
Chicago Tribune Endorses Johnson
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.

Source:
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
16 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×