Sunday, April 29, 2012

Eclipsing the Republican Nomination Exercise: the politics of paying off competitor’s campaign debts!

Keywords: Presumptive Nominee Mitt Romney; Rick Santorum; Newt Gingrich; Acrimonious competition; “Fuffy-duddy rich; Rob-my-back-I-rob-your-back Party; Money; Flip-flopper; Middle Income Earners; Political Favors; and Campaign debt retirement.

For Republicans, the nomination process is about to eclipse. The brutal campaign among the Republican aspirants that involved a lot of mudslinging and uncharitable comments among opponents or contestants in the Republican nomination process is now effectively over. Really? Well, so we think, if we are going by what is in the Press; Newt Gingrich has chosen to completely suspend his campaign for the Republican Party nomination on the first Wednesday in the month of May, 2012. The first cherished maître among Republicans: say no evil, see no evil, or hear no evil about another Republican, that was once shamelessly ignored during the feisty and acrimonious competition among the Republican candidates, is once again about to be burnished and caressed for the whole nation to see. I imagine, Ronald Reagan was turning in his grave during the 2012 Republican Nomination Contest!

For those who forgot, here is a laundry list of what Republicans called each other in their individual effort to outclass the next Republican in the nomination process. As a precaution to the reader, these are just a few in the list. In addition, for lack of space and self-indulgence, I document here only three candidates' utterances, each with at least, 100 delegates in the Republican nomination process and race:

Rick Santorum on Mitt Romney

A) “Romney will be the Worst Candidate to Race Obama”; B) After a decisive victory in Louisiana State, Rick said: “Voters still want to see someone, who they can trust, someone, who is not running an Etch-A Sketch campaign but one that, you know, has the principles written on their heart, not on an erasable tablet; C) Louisiana overwhelmingly rejected Mitt Romney’s push to press reset button because they know [Republicans] need a clear contrast to President Obama; and D) "Romney is not conservative enough for our Party."

Mitt Romney on Newt Gingrich

A) “Nominating Zany Gingrich is not what we need in a President”; B) "Zany is great in a campaign. It’s great on talk radio. It’s great in print, it makes for fun reading. But in terms of President, we need a leader and a leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together.” C) "People are taking a closer look at Speaker Gingrich. And like other [Republicans] who bumped up in the polls in this last year, as they take a closer look, some are happy with what they see and some would like to see something else and recognize that they may not be exactly what they wanted”; D) “Gingrich comes with a lot of baggage.”

Newt Gingrich on Mitt Romney

A) “Mitt Romney is not in touch with Reality”; B) “If Mitt Romney cannot win in any of the early primary states with more than 25% of the vote, Romney will be the weakest front-runner”; C) “Mitt Romney is a liar”; D) "The most anti-immigrant candidate"; E) I don't know of any president who has had a Swiss bank account; F) "Why should we expect [Romney] to level about anything if he is President?" H) Comparing himself to a bold Reagan Conservative, Newt Gingrich labeled Mitt Romney, a timid Massachusetts moderate.

The trend in all these utterances is the fact that Mitt Romney is perceived as either the worst or the weakest candidate to go against President Obama; or rather, the weakest Republican to go against a Democrat in a general election in two decades.

For the records, the presumptive Republican nominee is perceived by his competitors for the nomination as very imperfect, if not outright, unacceptable for the November 6, 2012 competition. There is the trepidation that Republicans are going to loose the contest, because they have chosen to field, probably the least conservative and the most unlike candidate, even among Republicans, as the party’s flag bearer. Now, the question is: how come Mitt Romney was able to maneuver his competitors in this race? The answer simply will be: Money and a broader national campaign organization that has taken close to four years to build, if you ask the Tea Party members. For this right wing group, Mitt Romney is either not conservative enough, or ineffectually unrepresentative of their position, even though he is the presumptive nominee. This group may not want to fester evil within the party, however, each of them find Mitt Romney, very distasteful.

Probably this is why Herman Cain, a one time Republican aspirant and somewhat of a favorite of the Tea Party members, who lost his credibility after the exposure that he is a womanizer, held his endorsement of Mitt Romney till now. Herman Cain was, or is, a darling of the Tea Party Group and would have done well with their support, if only for a while, before it was found out or alleged that he harasses women for cheap sex, when at the top! Funnily, this same Mr. Cain, this past week, endorsed the presumptive Republican Nominee, Mitt Romney, for the November 6th contest against Democrats. For prudent observers of the Republican race, by his endorsement of Mitt Romney, Herman Cain just threw Newt Gingrich under the bus in a bid to line up behind the presumptive nominee, after initially throwing his support behind him. Godfather Pizza former CEO uttered an interesting comment as he jumped ship: “There is a need to keep an eye on the mission of getting control of the United States Senate, maintaining control of the House of Representatives and defeating President Obama.” This kind of inconsistency and willingness to roll as the wind blows has made the new Republican Party, a house that is turned against itself. No wonder, one finds Rick Santorum, not enthusiastically willing to endorse Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, less skittish than Rick Santorum; but ready to play ball as long as Romney is ready to help him pay off some of his campaign debts. Now, we have a rob-my-back-I-rob-your-back Party, with probably the weakest candidate to bear the Republican flag in half a century, go against an articulate, confident, intelligent and probably, humorous and even keel President in a decade.

Considering all these new developments in the Republican Party, who could blame President Obama for mocking the presumptive Republican nominee before the Annual White House Correspondence Association’s dinner this weekend as: “Fuffy-duddy rich guy who travels with his dog in a cage strapped to the roof of the family car.” Making a comical statement like this along with visuals, showing Mitt Romney on the steps of Air-Force One, with his dog strapped to the roof top is somewhat forgivable, considering it was made in jest; or, considering that Republican aspirants did worse to each other in the bid to become the Party’s flag bearer. The incident of Mitt Romney tying his family dog to the roof of his family car while on an holiday travel, creates an image of an animal abuser; and, probably someone insensitive to the welfare of domestic animals. The presumptive nominee has not made his case better during the bitter campaign or nomination process with comments like, I love to fire people, I don’t care about the poor and I will shrink the U.S. Department of Education, if not completely eradicate the agency.

When a politician seems to be least invested in the concerns of voters, even within his Party, how is it feasible for him to win against another party’s flag bearer. When a politician engages in mudslinging and excessive character assignation of fellow contestant in a race for the nomination, how can the nation expect a different behavior against the President of United States, in Mitt Romney’s bid to attempt to unseat him? Mitt Romney will likely step up his attack of the President and his policies, the way he undermined Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to win the Republican nomination process. The troubling behavior about Mitt Romney, is that he has shown himself not only as a flip flopper as many critics labeled him, he has added to his accolades, a man with a mission to destroy opponents at all cost; and, someone who pretends to be an animal and or people lover, but will gladly trash both when push come to shove.

Whenever a republican nominee can labeled his opponent as someone with a lot of baggage, how can anyone consider him as presidential? The infighting among the Republican aspirants for the 2012 nomination has not only exposed Mitt Romney as UN-Presidential, it has shown that he can perpetrate some nefarious acts and remain disengaged from the populace, once he wins the White House. This is someone, who hardly finds it difficult to fire people who work for him, often ready to dismantle companies without caring about what suffering his decision will wroth on family members of fired Americans working for the company. This is someone who is more inclined to see human welfare in terms of dollars and cents, rather than, with empathy and the love of human to better self. This is someone, who once said, the 12 or more million Mexicans, with children, brothers, sisters, parents and grandparents will self-depot, once he gets into office. Like the old fellow down the street said: By their fruits, we shall know them!

Yes, Mitt Romney will help Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich pay down part, if not all their political debts; however, he is unlikely to stand up to ameliorate all the problems the middle-income earners have been going through during the sluggish economy. Between what we know regarding Mitt Romney style of campaign annihilation during the Republican Party nomination exercise and the willing and dealing that will ensue between Mitt Romney and each of the remaining Republican Party outgoing candidate, we will likely find out what the presumptive Republic nominee is willing to trade off to buy favor or support from people. We will find out what he is willing to trade-off to get the support of the Tea Party members and other conservative Republicans in order to fend off any other opposition to his candidacy within the Republican Party. We will find out how aggressively he is willing to trade off important variables to the voters' welfare when it concerns winning the White House; and, know a little bit more of the nature of the man who wants to be President from the Mormon Church.

Seeking to be engaged with the concerns of the led is a responsible characteristic of a good leader; and, a reasonable expectation of those to be led. Encouraging programs and public policy that addresses the concerns of the led, is not only a sign of a reflective leader, it admonishes the person in the position of authority, as reflective. Possibility that 'President' Mitt Romney will be proactive in dealing with the needs of the middle income earners is debatable, as long as he continues to push Paul Ryan’s budget. Those middle income earners, who have suffered tremendously during the down turn in American economy, are being told to hold off, that ‘President’ Mitt Romney is bringing a new day to them! This is probably too optimistic considering that the same person is receiving ten million dollars yearly from Bain Capital, a corporation that builds its wealth on downsizing and re-organizing American companies for profit. No one needs be told, that CEO Mitt Romney is here to re-organize America and downsize her government to the extent that, the nation will begin to hemorrhage jobs and money again, just as in the past under the Republican Party’s custody of the White House. Those who have advanced Mitt Romney’s executive management skills as the maître solution of what is wrong with America economy should think again: Do we want to jump from frying pan to fire, once again?

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Death of an Ambition: When a Republican ‘ideas’ man quit the campaign trail?

Keywords or Terms: Newt Gingrich; Permanent American Moon Colony; Flag bearer; Party Ambition and Goal; Nomination; United States House of Representatives; Hope and Change

Which Presidential candidate can take a campaign on life support, to one winning two States in a dramatically filled Republican nomination competition? Which candidate with a heavily indebted credit to Tiffany once attained the front runner status among the Republican candidates seeking nomination to be the Party’s flag bearer? Which Presidential candidate aspired to have a permanent American colony on the moon? Which Republican Presidential candidate had more fat in him than the beacon machine grinder? The answer to these questions is very simple. The candidate who was once characterized by another Republican opponent as having more baggage than all the airlines put together, Newt Gingrich? This candidate brought more ridiculous proposals to the nomination process than any of the eight candidates that initially appeared for the first debate in the nomination process. This candidate offered more mundane proposals, which to some sounded as great ideas, more dramatically to the campaign process than the movie: Toy Story! You wondered if the former speaker of the United States House of Representatives, over the years since quitting that office, had lost his wits, as he offered many laughable ideas on the campaign trail. Beyond the idea of having a permanent American colony on the moon, Mr. Newt Gingrich offered what was tantamount to an unrealistic, unworkable and most importantly, impractical taxation reform proposal in his bid to become the Republican nominee. Mr. Gingrich campaign not only lost steam from about two weeks to its start, it probably was on life support through out the campaign process. Many observers maintain that, but for the Nevada millionaire and his wife who injected ten million of theirs into New Gingrich campaign, the former speaker of the House would have bowed out much sooner.

If you have problem with understanding why Mr. Gingrich ever offered himself as a candidate for Republican nomination, maybe you should look at the 2012 class of potential Republican nominees. In a year, when it seems all great persons and personalities with better chances or potential at running against President Obama, stayed at home, we have a Mediocre Etch-A-Sketcher, A Social Conservative with torch of loud mouth, A woman molester with a flair for denials, A flunky Texas Cowboy with rather poor communication skills, A physician with knack for national isolation from the rest of the world, A former Ambassador to China who recently quit the Republican Party, A congresswomen that had better been left in the middle ages and much more! Internal discussions among the mainstream Republicans indicated that the 2012 slate of Republican candidates for nomination, are at best, second rate. Recent interviews by the Media in States like Delaware and New Jersey, said the probable Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, is a second best. That reminds me of what my buddies say while we were in high school : When the desirable is unavailable, the available becomes desirable!

What creates the opportunity for Mitt Romney to rise up to the level of the probable Republican flag bearer is the lack of candidate with depth and conservative values in the 2012 class of Republican aspirants. After a drought of well meaning conservative Republicans with name recognition, a campaign organization and followership that can be touted as being very conservative enough, the rank and file of the Republican Party are settling for a Mormon with a magic underpants, who is as inconsistent in his political views and positions as the weather in Southern States in the hurricane and tornado seasons. Once a shake and bake French speaking door-knocking Mormon missionary to a Vulture Capitalist, the Republicans are about to field a candidate which many within the Party, agree is not just good enough! Republican Conservatives don’t like him; the mainstream can barely tolerate him; and those Republican lawmakers in congress, are now just closing ranks behind him, as they find themselves, unable to present the nominee that truly represents their position. Presenting Mitt Romney as the Republican flag bearer is like marrying an ugly girlfriend out of sympathy! Truth be told, if Republicans had other options, an unlikeable, impersonal looking and sometimes awkward looking candidate, with a background in firing people, dismantling companies and destroying families and family values, is the last candidate that will be bearing the Republican flag in the November 6th contest.

As Republicans contemplate their chances of winning back the White House, the Senate and probably retaining majority in the House, they will find that, the possibility of attaining these goals in 2012, is a very steep one, because of the disarray in the party and the class of candidates they are fielding in contests for all the offices currently held by Democrats. Beyond the class of candidates being fielded in the coming contests, there is a growing understanding among the Republican leaders in Congress, that the Party is ill-prepared; that their goal to become a stumbling block to the Democratic Administration is about to backfire, if not already backfiring; and their ambition to make President Obama, a one-term President, maybe a mirage. For instance, how do Republicans intend to repair the damage to the loyalty brand of some far right members in the Tea Party? How do Republicans change the perception in the country that their congressional leaders held the nation to ransom on legislations that could have improved the unemployment problem; and or, the fiscal health of the nation? How are Republicans going to supplant the notion that their goal is to remain a spoiler, a disagreeable and disgruntled group of gun-tattling, war-mongering and you-are-on-your-own Party? How are Republicans going to shed the image of coddler of the rich, affluent and better-off citizens and corporations in America? Time has changed, the country as a whole is wiser, information technology has opened up many unknowns; and, no one can hide under the oppression of the many over the few in isolated areas of the country. Whether many Americans like it or not, change is really here: American politics is getting more open than before because of the advent of the internet; opinion leaders are changing, never again will the editorial pages from just one tiny newspaper in an isolated enclave in a southern or northern state move the voting patterns in that area or the state. Can Republicans stand to loose the election to President Obama because of their choice of flag bearer?

In a time of improving economic standing, when and where job growth is gradually improving, after a long doldrums, it is going to be very difficult to make a claim that under President Obama, the economy has remained as underperforming, as when he took office in 2009. President Obama has done well, if not terrifically, because of the state of the economy when he took over from the Republican Administration. The plurality of Americans will remember that Republicans brought the economy probably to a stand still because of the two unpaid wars, unusual and excessive tax cuts for the rich, unnecessary grandstanding in congress, and the inability to bring in the number one enemy of America, Osama bin Laden, among others! The fastest growing minority group in America, Latinos, will remember the negative position of Republicans on immigration reform. Women will take to heart the unnecessary Republicans antagonism over their health and reproductive choices. The long unemployed will remember that when it was time to spend on job creation, Republican lawmakers balked under the pretext of where to find the money for that opportunity. Students will flock to Democrats because of the favorability and likeability of President Obama; and, because he has chosen to reiterate Republican lawmakers unlikeliest attempt to help students hold down the interest rates on Stafford loans.

In an upcoming brutal Presidential contest, which political pundits and strategists maintain is going to be a hard fought one, Republicans cannot afford to be on stand by; they cannot afford to be seen as anti-education, uninspiring on education, unhelpful to teachers and their union; and anti health care reform. Under what is probably an iffy likelihood of the Supreme Court ruling the Affordable Health Care Reform as unconstitutional and, a likelihood that the knowledgeable judges are likely going to just rule part of the law as unconstitutional and allow the law to still stand, the Republican Party are virtually towing with their ambition or goal. Republicans cannot assume the responsibility for ineffective leadership, unrepresentative and unlikeable flag bearer; the party cannot afford to deal with a fracas party convention, where some members feel left out because of the individual being put up as the Party Flag bearer. Great majority of voters among the Anglo-Saxons, Pentecostal Christians and Southerners are likely going to turn away from voting Republicans because they cannot bring themselves to voting for a Mormon. This is a reality that Republicans cannot and must not ignore. Ultimately, the leaders in the Republican Party will have to deal with the change that is to come, as Democrats over run the party come November.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Exit of a Social Conservative: When Rick Santorum throws in the towel in the Republication Nomination Process?

Keywords or Terms: Republican Nomination; Pennsylvania; Rick Santorum; Newt Gingrich; Ron Paul; Mitt Romney; Formidable Campaign; Political Strategy; Etch-A-Sketch Exercise; Game’s On; and General Elections.

The Exit of Rick Santorum from the Republican Nomination Process about a week ago is both an astute political strategy as well as a defeat of what was considered a social conservative resurgence in the Republican Nomination Process. Graciously as is often said, he who fights and runs lives to fight another day! Rick Santorum had waged a political war against Mitt Romney for the Republican Party nomination and had won eleven states just before he bowed out of the race. Despite what political pundits said about his financial anemic campaign in the earlier stages of the nomination process, Rick Santorum showed himself, a formidable campaigner; and, nearly won the hearts of the Republican status quo and many Republican voters on the fringes, except for his inability to bring in more monetary donations from supporters that could have seen him through.

As is often said, money is the life blood of any political campaign. Without enough political contributions or personal wealth, many politicians can hardly fight a formidable campaign against an opponent. The chances that Rick Santorum’s campaign could survive on a shoe string budget or piggy bank, is actually slim, considering the mammoth size of the country; and, the number of required contacts with potential voters, to triumph in a bitterly fought nomination process. The blog today, explores what Rick Santorum recent move in the Republican Party nomination process means for his future ambition(s); and, why the move probably was the best of option available to him in the scheme of things.

Any time an aspirating politician for an office drops out of contest in the middle of a campaign spree or arrangement, there is often a cogent reason for that decision. A misguided motive may be adduced but in reality, the options available to that politician may be too limited, considering the terrain of possible outcomes in an impeding primary vote. The Pennsylvania primary and voting was expected to be tough for the son of the soil, Rick Santorum. Preliminary polling for the upcoming primary in the state of Pennsylvania put Rick Santorum, a couple of digits behind the front runner, Mitt Romney. Most contemporary surveys showed that the grassroots organization of Mitt Romney was paying off; even in a state that Rick Santorum was expected to win handily, considering this is his home state. However, the risk of a loss for Rick Santorum was very evident, and the steam rolling potential of Mitt Romney from three successive primary wins, just before Rick Santorum bowed out, was very mesmerizing or convincing. The likelihood was: Mitt Romney was about to outclass Rick Santorum in his home State, Pennsylvania. No one will therefore, fault the Pennsylvania native from bowing out. Compounding his challenge in the race towards the nomination, is the reality that, it is very possible that Rick Santorum will be unable to muster 80% of the remaining contests, to beat Mitt Romney to the 1144 delegates, to become the Republican nominee or flag bearer for the November 6th contest.

If Rick Santorum’s clout was promising, he may have been trilled to hold on till the last minute, hoping against all odds, to beat the front runner. If his campaign chest had been as rosy as Mitt Romney’s, he may have stood a better chance to wrestle the nomination from him. However, these were not so and his financiers were equally convinced that the odds were against their candidate at this stage of the contest. This is why you probably heard some backlash comments from Rick Santorum’s major financier to the effect that Mitt Romney, isn’t the best candidate to compete against President Barack Obama. Invariably, this is why some political pundits insisted that Rick Santorum was reading the writing on the wall loud and clearly; and, it would have been ingenious of him, to continue to play the odds, hoping that another candidate, Newt Gingrich, will choose to drop out, so his supporters may be heralded or convinced to throw their support or weight behind him. Yes, there were some Conservative Republicans that were not committed to New Gingrich; however, there are not enough of them that could move the needle of support for Rick Santorum to challenge the inevitability of Mitt Romney to become the Republican Party nominee.

Further, anytime Rick Santorum’s political advisers accosted the Newt Gingrich team, to see if there can be a resolution of the triage in the support from the Republican conservatives, they were often and handily rebuffed. Sadly too, a lack of commitment from this group to the social conservative message from Rick Santorum was going to undermine Rick Santorum’s chances of moving ahead. Additionally, few of some weary Republican conservatives, were interested in a war against women regarding the use on contraceptives or the place of religion in American politics or the role of government in public health, even though each of them hold some relative support for conservative values cherished by Rick Santorum. The missed opportunity or wasted chance is found in some gaffes from Rick Santorum, which placed him at a reasonable and relative disadvantage to compete against Mitt Romney for all conservative votes in the remaining states, where primaries and or caucuses were yet to be held.

Capitulation was inevitable for the second runner up to the Republican Party nomination for the flag bearer. He was only not handicapped financially; he was also handicapped by his tone of political message, even among Republicans. His choices of political fighting words were acceptable to some Republicans, many others within the Republican fold found it objectionable. Avoiding the obvious regarding the impossibility of harvesting enough delegates at this stage to stand at par or outclass Mitt Romney, will be delusional; and, this is probably one of the reasons Rick Santorum dropped out of the race. What were other reasons and what are the potential implications?

First, a prudent political observer must consider the question: what image does Rick Santorum want the Republican Party echelon or rank and file of the party, to have of him, in case he chooses to launch a possible campaign in 2016; or future years? Is it one of a spoiler or a team player, as he once construed of party politics? The road to the nomination process is not always abridged by a choice to drop out of a nomination in one year or season. An aspirant that drops out in one year to make way for another candidate with a better chance of advancing may actually create better fervor for his or her own candidacy in the future, in case he or she chooses to contest in the subsequent 4th, 8th or 12th year political increment competition. To ensure that a candidate does not loose support in subsequent nomination process, it may be wise to take the decision that Rick Santorum has taken in the Republican 2012 Nomination Process.

The questions asked by some political observers that it was just too early for Rick Santorum to throw in the towel the way he has done, may be genuine, based on the myopic way individual of those pundits are envisaging the contest so far; and, what may hold for Rick Santorum in the remaining state primaries and caucuses. No one could actually tell what is to come; however, Rick Santorum has chosen to be safe than sorry. Imagine if Rick Santorum had remained in the Republican nomination process and he had been trounced by Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum’s home state. Wouldn’t that have been a disaster for him; knowing fully well that Rick Santorum was tossed out by voters from his Senatorial seat  because of what the voters considered were Rick Santorum’s excesses or weaknesses, whichever one you take, in the last contest he was involved, at the state level.

Second, many politicians have a very short shelf life because of their inability to articulate a message for a campaign. Misrepresentation and inconsistencies found in some comments coming out of politicians have derailed or put them at a disadvantage against an opponent. Questions may be different, if Rick Santorum’s had made very endearing comments regarding his campaign and his opponents within the Republican Party. Recent comments from Rick Santorum that Mitt Romney is a duplicate, or mirror image of the potential Democratic Party opponent, President Obama, was unacceptable and had infuriated some Republicans! To this group, Rick Santorum’s comment at the time was dishonorable if not, heresy. Further, a synonymous comment was found in Mitt Romney’s campaign, when he articulated that he was the only one capable enough, because of his business background, to take on President Obama. The “Iffy” issue with Mitt Romney’s Comments can also be found in Rick Santorum’s.

Everyone knows, except each would want to continue to fool him or herself that a President’s success in many affairs of the state, depends on his or her advisers. Given the Republican Party aspiration to unseat President Obama, If Mitt Romney by 2016, is unable to conquer the nation’s challenge with the under performing economy, the fault usually will not be his, and his alone; although, the political blame and or consequences will rest on his shoulders, the way President Obama is suffering right now. Governance, especially in the area of a nation’s economy, requires a lot of support from many advisors, some of which may be workable and others, probable infeasible because of some issues going on in the other areas of the economy. Much as some voters may like to take out their frustration on President Obama in the November 2012 contest, for the challenging economic climate, it is very short-sighted for these people, not to appreciate that the economic problems inherited by the present administration, were created over close to a decade, by a Republican administration, in their poor management of the fiscal affairs of the nation, including two unpaid foreign wars and the continued tax cuts for the millionaires among us.

Third, imagine the multiple gaffes from Mitt Romney in his bid to cart up to some extreme Republicans. Imagine also statements that in many instances look rather absurd, even for Conservative Republicans: “My wife drives two Cadillac’s, I don’t care about the poor, and I listen to my wife regarding women concerns regarding the status of the economy”, among others. The individualistic, make-it-on-your-own tone that Mitt Romney’s campaign messages have taken, would not sit very well with millions of high school graduates, some in low paying jobs as waitresses, but who are heads of household; many in this group form a huge segment of the Republican voters in many Red States. To make head way with this group of voters, especially in many Southern states where voters are more likely to vote Republican, will be very hard in this coming election, because of how these messages are perceived as condescending or marginalizing to many in this group.

Complex and somewhat abusive comments from a political aspirant hardly engages voters; especially those that feel aggrieved from the candidate’s comments, and can actually damage the candidate’s chances. When Rick Santorum began to make some comments regarding the American family values and the place of social conservative doctrine, many potential supporters of his, turned away and some actually turned against him. Can you imagine a comment like having a penny between the ladies knees, if they do not want to get unwanted pregnancies, coming from Rick Santorum’s major financier? Although this latter comment was not from Rick Santorum, voters made no difference as to who made this outrageous comment; they faulted the default messenger, Rick Santorum. One must expect that Mitt Romney will suffer some voters’ attrition or support from some comments he made in recent months, regarding women health, the budget cut imbroglio from Congressman Paul Ryan and the Medicare savings or reform.

The challenge from all these observations are not essentially personal to a particular politician; usually, voters tend to vote their interest and some comments from politicians that seem to erode the economic depth or social independence of voters, are often frowned upon and voted against, in many political exercises and contests. This is one of the reasons, why Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican nomination race and the reason, why all the utterances from Mitt Romney, during the Republican Nomination Process, may come to hunt him in the general elections. It is also one reason why, at a point in the Republican nomination contest, one of Mitt Romney’s political advisers, indicated that the Republican Nomination process has the potential of being an Etch-A-Sketch Exercise towards the general elections.

Is Rick Santorum choice to drop out of the Republican nomination process the better or best option available to him in the scheme of things? A deviation, when the odds against a candidacy are so much, is as prudent, as laying in wait for another opportunity to compete to win. Avoiding a potential embarrassing or disgraceful outcome is much a better option, when all else are about to fail. A failure to win Pennsylvania may have doomed any seriousness Rick Santorum’s campaign was being been given by many voters and observers. When a politician takes time to review chances in an impending election and takes actions to avoid a possible failure, the politician is showing prudence, or necessarily being reflective.

When a political candidate fails to act or stays in a race, where voters see his or her action as disconnected from reality, his or her sense of judgment is questioned, even in other circumstances or issues that could have worked in his or her favor. This is the dilemma that Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul will find themselves. Both candidacies, for all we know, are failing towards the Republican Nomination process. For these candidates to remain adamant and continue to re-assert that they will take their odds to the general floor of the Republican Party Convention is to be failing to deal with reality. Maybe their decision(s) may not hurt either man as both are in advanced stages of their lives; however, their decision may come to hunt them in other ways. Imagine if the eventual Republican nominee decides to consider either man as part of his administration. Would this decision affect the nominee’s ultimate call or will he discountenance it? Your guess is as good as mine!

For now, all we know is that, for all practical purposes, Mitt Romney will be the Republican Flag bearer for the 2012 General Elections. A reality that I can hear the Democrats say: Game’s on!

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Romney’s cloak of Inevitability: Can a liberal Republican Change America?

Keywords or Terms: Uninspiring Republican Candidate; Etch-A-Sketch Nominee; Contrasting Obama with Mitt Romney; Power Change from time to time: Democrats vs. Republicans; Paul Ryan’s Budget and 2012 Presidential Election; American Society of News Editors (ASNE).

Once again, Mitt Romney is finding his voice. The potential Republican nominee, who was hurting so bad from spree of loses last month in states like Missouri, Tennessee and Kansas, is finding his voice again after yesterday’s successes in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington D.C. In his newly found unbanning voice, Romney is pledging tax cut across the board; he is pledging to take the country away from big government; he is championing Paul Ryan’s budget plan, he is insisting that his understanding of what is wrong with America’s Economy is over bloated government and the grounded understanding or knowledge of what it must take for the economy to start growing at a faster rate than what we now have by President Obama.

For many months, Republicans argue among themselves, if Mitt Romney was the right candidate for their so-called conservative leaning?  In a dispersed group of shareholders, where the extremists took over the party, politicians like Congressman Paul Ryan bloomed and the possibility of their voice coming mainstream became realistic for the Republicans. Enters the opportunist Mitt Romney and his desire to curry this type of extremism in America’s politics, Romney began to talk favorably about Paul Ryan’s budget plan that was all but rejected by the Republican lawmakers in congress a year ago. Is Romney realistic? Is Romney the manager he is claiming to be? How can a chief-executive subscribe to a plan that will disenfranchise majority of his shareholder? Does Romney know what is in the Paul Ryan’s budget plan?

Consider that Paul Ryan’s budget only offer anxiety, stress and exhaustion for adults and poor children on Medicare and Medicaid. Doubly consider that a conservative leaning Newspaper, Washington Post, has criticized the Paul Ryan’s budget plan in its opinion page as dire and worthless. Why then is Romney championing the course of a right wing legislator like Paul Ryan? Is it out of his newly found voice or the necessity to do anything it takes to seem more conservative than he was before his front runner status among Republicans seeking their Party’s nomination? One probable uncontested reason, is the fact that for all intense and purposes, Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican flag bearer after their convention. Other contestable reason is, Mitt Romney will do anything possible, to seem more attuned to the welfare of women, like having his wife speak for him or re-brand his campaign, even if he is intuitively nursing how to draw back on the gains of women on their reproductive issues, courtesy of the right wingers who have now taken over the Republican Party.

The most spectacular reason is the necessity to become a mainstream candidate if he is going to win votes from independents. In the frenzy fight for Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made so many gaffes that his supporters wondered, if this was truly a serious candidate that understood the plight of ordinary Americans. From my wife drives two Cadillac to, I don’t care about the poor! Yet, in a session with the American Society of News Editors today, Romney claimed that President Obama is criticizing policies that no one is proposing and failing to run on his record.

Governor Romney may be tempering his Etch-A-Sketch image by attempting to appeal to a broader audience with his pronouncements, but the reality is: Governor Romney embraced Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget that is attempting to completely destroy whatever is left of the American middle-class. While Governor Romney maybe attempting to prevent the Obama’s Campaign team from defining his campaign to the American voters as shown by the President’s speech yesterday, the reality is: President Obama has not said anything that many living Americans in the past three decades do not know: The trickle down economics doctrine, supply-side economics, once branded Reaganomics, has never worked for America and would continue to be a disaster for the nation’s middle-class if we continue to buy into it.

In the early 80’s, under President Reagan, the nation bought into the pipe dream of supply-side economics and got badly burned to the extent that it had to go back on some of the public policies before the nation start trending to a catastrophic economic depression or Armageddon.  Under the second Bush Presidency, George W. Bush, the nation went back to the same devious idea of cutting taxes for the rich after making some strides under a Democratic President, William H. Clinton. The doctrine failed so badly, the house of cards collapsed about four years ago, and everyone saw and experienced the fallacies: lost jobs, homes and savings. Lost lives, time and hope! Many economists lambasted President Reagan’s excessive correction of the economy, which some claimed was one of the reasons many social programs that were helping many Americans stay above water, went away. Once again, we are having another apostle of supply-side economics vying for the office of the presidency!

In an attempt to over-correct for some excesses of the economy, including wastage on social welfare programs in the 80', one supply-side guru, named Ronald Reagan, nearly brought the whole economy to demise, before we entered into the first Gulf War. The cutting of taxes for the wealthiest precipitated a culture of deficit spending that kept on digging America into a hole. Another Republican President who still insisted he could make it right, believing in some of the tenets of President Reagan's supply-side economics, got us into the first Gulf War and with his eyes away from the ball, lost billions in our coffers and we went spiraling into a recession. With the slogan, 'it is the economy stupid', President Clinton corrected for some slag in the economy and assisted us in building a nest house, a respite we completely lost under the voyeurism of another Republican President into the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unbridled spending during the second Iraq war precipitated the fast-track free fall of the economy. 

Once we entered into an unpaid war in Iraq, there is no way we could avoid falling into another of deficit spending or possible recession. With an unpaid for war and huge tax cut for the wealthy, not only were jobs not created as promised from the supply-side Republican economics gurus, we unwittingly fell into a deeper hole with financial sector laws deregulation and consequential budget deficits spending that only the 'Reaganomists' could explain. We began fearing our note holders were going to come calling; and, China and India, countries that were third world nations barely two decades ago, began dictating the rate of interest on our over-bloated debts! Correcting for many of these past mistakes, which an intelligent, sharp and cautious President, Barack Obama, is helping us figure out, is what we are still on. Now come another snake oil sales man, Republican Mitt Romney, attempting to dissuade us, calling for us to go back to our old bad habits of cutting taxes for the rich, fighting unpaid for wars and building up on our armories, one that is better than any other country's in the world, with an Etch-A-Sketch strategy campaign. Many of us who have lost our jobs, homes and savings remember this and would not allow another Republican zealot to continue to destroy America. Cutting taxes for the wealthiest, fighting unpaid wars and promising to exploit one of the nation’s natural resources till kingdom come, will do the nation and its people, no good. Any politician of that persuasion therefore, must be kept at bay, because we all saw what happened the last time. Was this point well-articulated by President Obama in his speech to the American Society of News Editors? Yes! Should President Obama apologize for his speech before this group? No, No and No!!!

As an Etch-A-Sketch politician, Governor Romney indicated that the type of health care reform in the state of Massachusetts is just as good for the nation. Once he began to show keen interest in the Presidency and critics began to ask questions about what is now called ‘Obamacare’, a prototype of ‘RomneyCare’, the flip-flopper began to backtrack. The American voters' aim is to bind Mitt Romany to the health care reform in his home state of Massachusetts, yet he is balking? Who can imagine that less than a decade of a health care reform packaged and mid-whiffed by Governor Romney, he will today be running away from the same law. What must residents of Massachusetts be thinking today: Did the snake oil governor/salesman sold us another bad investment in Romneycare? Who can imagine that a man, who can hardly be taken as reflective, is turning away from many of his statements, just to gain currency and win a general election? Is this type of person worthy of consideration to be the President of this great nation? My candid response to the last question is this: H*ll No.!  What we want as a nation is a stable hand, a consistent and dependable leader, a man of his words, not a wish-washy fly by night politician, who will do anything to be elected President of this nation. We are tired of deceptive leaders who will want to derail our dreams and ambition as a nation. We do not need another Supply-side economics or public policy before we know it will fail us again!

How might Paul Ryan’s budget figure into the 2012 Presidential Election? Sometimes, it might be wise for Americans to look back into their Economic History to be able to make better prediction(s) regarding what Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan has to offer the nation and its people. The hostile takeover of the Republican Party by the extreme right may offer a great debate of where America must go from here in the 2012 Presidential elections; however, regarding the welfare of the economy, Paul Ryan’s budget is the last anyone should be looking forward to getting us out of our deficit hole. Knowing what we went through towards the end of another Republican Presidency, President George W. Bush, the nation must take a long hard look at anyone selling us another tax cut policy. We must make it harder for Republicans or any deceptive leader to ascend the thrown very soon. If Paul Ryan is right, and economic history is any guide, the type of budget being proposed and receiving blessing from 'Republican Nominee' Mitt Romney, will serve the nation, no good. And if any politician is subscribing to this type of supply-side economics, we must all speak with one voice and repeat: Once bitten twice shy!

The intrusive nature of the Tea Party that has held Republicans to ransom must not be allowed nationwide; and, this is probably one of the greatest reasons to reject the Republican's likely nominee from the oval office. To paraphrase President Obama’s speech yesterday before American Society of News Editors (ASNE): If the nation buys into Paul Ryan’s plan to save Medicare and reign in spending, as passed on party vote line in the House of Representative last week, the nation would see mothers and young children loose healthy and nutritious food, college students lose financial aid, the Department of Justice and FBI unable to enforce laws and administer justice, and in certain parts of the country, air traffic controllers would vanish; even, weather forecasters would be handicapped! Is anyone prepared for such a scenario? If President Obama is not exaggerating, are we ready to stomach another Armageddon? Your guess is as good as mine. 

Yes, the government may need to speed up the economic performance so that the 8.3% unemployment rate could come down. President Obama has made it possible for rule changes in many of the government regulations that have been stifling economic growth; he has worked most recently to allow for some lease and licensing for alternative energy source exploitation and other opportunities for drilling in federal lands, and we are experiencing some life in the economy. But why should we switch in the middle of gradual progress to an unreliable switch and bait executive officer in the White house, whose only campaign logo is:  I once did it in the private sector, so I can translate my private sector success or experience to the public sectors that is well over a billion size of Bain's Capital? Governor Romney’s promise is simply that: a promise from a politician! Knowing what the nation knows right now about apathy in congress and dishonesty of politicians, why should anyone have faith in an aspirant who is depending or casting all his lot with a politician. Paul Ryan, who has hardly known what it takes to work in a framework of compromise for the betterment of the whole nation, is asking the nation to buy into another tax cut and disheveled budget, only for the sake of savings on Medicaid and Medicare. Is this necessarily right for America at this time? This is one question that must be on the mind of American voters come November 6, 2012!

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Is the Affordable Care Act near Collapse: When the rule of law changes the options before the U.S. Supreme Court?

 Keywords or Terms: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)(P.L. 111-148); Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA)(P.L. 111-152); Affordable Care Act; Constitutionality Contest; Oral Arguments; U.S. Supreme Court; Republicans; Democrats; and, Contemplating the June Ruling from the Highest Court. 

The litigation before the United States Supreme Court last week on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act has been trumpeted as exhilarating exercise of legal arguments between titans: the current solicitor-general versus a former solicitor general. The power of oral arguments and presentation from these legal scholars was at play and the question on many observers' minds are: Could either power of arguments between two legal luminaries lead to the demise of the affordable care act, or could it have saved the law before the United States Supreme Court Justices? Could the stand alone merits of the Affordable Care Act convince the majority of the justices on the bench to rule in favor of the constitutionality of the law, excluding the performance of oral arguments? Could the 1867 Anti-injunction act derail argument over Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Public law 111-148) and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA) (Public law 111-152), before the U.S. Supreme Court? If at all, could we be experiencing schism within the supporters and opponents of these law based on some of the provisions of the law that have gone into effect and how beneficiaries of these provisions are responding to the possibility of the law being ruled as unconstitutional? These are the related questions before the highest court; and some, which the country needed answers

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act reckoned that the merits and benefits of the law are good enough to rule the law as constitutional. Antagonists of the law had reckoned also, that a law requiring all Americans to carry health care insurance is unconstitutional, likening the mandatory provision of the health care law as synonymous to asking Americans to buy a private product, just like broccoli! Antagonists were neither buying into the benefits or merits in the law nor the argument of the power of congress to make any law as sacrosanct; to them, the constitution does not give anyone the power to enact a law requiring Americans to purchase a private product. Supporters of the law argue that the mandatory provision in the law is an attempt to manage risks, where a few who could afford health insurance are avoiding to purchase health care insurance because of the exorbitant cost, partly brought on by many, about 44 million, who cannot afford to buy health care insurance because of low income. Despite the fact that the law has the chance of affording roughly forty million more Americans to carry health care insurance at subsidized premiums or aggregated product deliverance through an exchange, the antagonists are not prepared to forgo their liberty under the constitution to have the law. Welcome to the new activist America!

A casual listener to the oral argument(s) over the law before the US Supreme Court could have assumed that the Supreme Court would rule either way; and that, the chances of the law surviving the constitutional challenge, is a 50-50. Prior to the oral argument before the highest court in the land, Vice President Biden had insinuated that the Supreme Court will find the law constitutional. After the Oral argument(s) and presentation, the White House reaffirmed that the US Supreme Court will find the law constitutional based on its merits and the commerce clause. Congressional power to make a law requiring citizens to carry health care insurance may be seen as being in play in this case; however, many die-hard convicts of the Affordable Care Act conclude that congress is within its power to enact this law and there has been no need to bring the constitutional question, especially the mandatory provision in the law before the U.S Supreme Court for consideration and or clarification. In addition, despite what seems to be a weak argument or presentation of the government lawyers in support of the constitutionality question, convicts of the law maintain that it will be premature if anyone considered the comparative performance of the current solicitor-general against the attorney(s) for the 26 states, before the US Supreme Court, as barometer of measure of possible outcome in the case.

The minutiae of how laws are enacted may be calculated with the length of time and power of debate from both sides of the argument in both chambers of congress. The affordable care act was vigorously debated before the two chambers for close to eighteen months and the current White House expended a lot of political capital to ensure that the act was enacted into law without much hiccups. One would have imagined that with the number of lawmakers who are constitutional lawyers and other support staff, who by profession are constitutional lawyers, the constitutionality of the law would have been settled, since many of these legal junkies would have had the opportunity to vet the provisions of the law for constitutionality. This would have probably saved everyone the nightmare of having to wait for another three months before hearing the ruling from the highest court in the land.

Before delving into the issues before the court and what the independent positions of the arguments for and against the law are, it is probably wise to emphasize two important points regarding the current acrimony between the two major political parties over the constitutionality of the law. First, Democrats see the Affordable Care Act as a paramount opportunity to reform the health care system and open up health care insurance to millions of Americans who had no insurance till the advent of the law; and, ensure that free loaders of the former health care system do not continue to take advantage of people carrying health care insurance, since they had to chip in for the care of those without health care insurance as they flooded the hospital emergency rooms.

The difficult challenges of the overburdened emergency room visits from free loaders were becoming nightmarish for the hospitals and the nation, partly because of the exorbitant costs of such visits and the unthinkable burden it was having on insurance companies and payers. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (P.L. 111-148); Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA) (P.L. 111-152), conclusively christened the Affordable Care Act and mischievously known as the Obama care was going to become a panacea solution for many of the problems that deluged the health care system and the delivery of health care services to many Americans. The law had been half a century in making, the Democratic Party and their leader in the White House, were ready and prepared to attempt to find some solutions; and if not, restructure some of the impediments to the American Health Care System, so that more Americans are able to have health insurance coverage.

Second, Republicans, especially the ideologically driven group in the current class of law makers in the lower chamber of congress, are bent on espousing fiscal responsibility at all cost, not minding whose stomach is being gored, as they contributed to the process of making law in congress. To this group, the enactment of the Affordable Care Act is egregious and any one supporting this law is bent at bankrupting the nation. These lawmakers used many procedural moves in congressional lawmaking to ensure that the law was not passed; despite all the possibilities in the law. It got to an extent that a special congressional committee was set up, outside the congressional lawmaking norms, to allow for ironing out of differences in some of the provisions in the law. Even with those extra-ordinary efforts, the Republican lawmakers were still against the enactment of the law.

Some of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act that are now being called to question for their constitutionality, were actually loaded on at the committee levels to allow for the law to be acceptable or palatable to many more supporters from both aisle of congress. Notwithstanding, all House Republican lawmakers failed to give their blessing to the enactment of the law. All the votes that were cast for or against the affordable care act were on the party line; and, the issue of validation of provisions in the law for constitutionality was all but secondary to many of the lawmakers. In addition, assurance of transparency in negotiated provisions in the law was called to question, when the White House stepped in, subsequent to a stalemate in arriving at a balance in the provisions in the law. Democrats in both chambers of congress went to great lengths to ensure support for provisions in the law by Republican lawmakers. All the current agitations surrounding the passing of the law which has formed the basis of fighting the constitutionality of the law are coming from the Republican Party and believe it or not, are the same basis which the Republican Attorney General in twenty six states had brought this suit. There are perhaps some indications that the fight against the law can be associated with efforts from some right wing Republicans to make President Obama, a one-term President. In fact, the acrimoniousness that have led to the mandatory question coming before the highest court in the land, emanated from party politics, not necessarily the merits of the law.

Approximately thirty million Americans are currently being added to the health insurance role due to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Health Insurance Coverage, that had eluded new college graduates and children between the ages of 21 and 26, is now a standard provision of the law. Patients with per-existing conditions and adults, who were once thrown under the bus because of the stigma of the life-time limit on cost of care under the old health care system, would hardly argue against the law and its associated benefits since its enactment in 2010. Health Care System Reform that began under President Lyndon Johnson and which had suffered its ups and downs under many Democratic Party Presidents, who have attempted to make changes to the system because it was hardly working for many, intensified under President Bill Clinton and was realized under President Barack Obama. Sadly, the current mandatory provision that is being antagonized by Republicans was once proposed by Republican lawmakers. These are the challenges and the hypocrisies found in the current question before the United States Supreme Court regarding the issue of the law's constitutionality.

Back to last week litigation, arguments and presentations before the United States Supreme Courts, contemplated the following in a three-day, two hour session per day arrangement: 1) whether the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits parties from challenging the mandatory provision in the law; 2) Whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting the Affordable Care Act with a mandatory provision; the constitutionality question; 3) If the mandatory provision is unconstitutional, can the severance of this singular provision, de-legitimize the remaining part of the Affordable Care Act; 4) Whether an argument of coercion comes to play regarding federal government’s attempt to defund Medicaid, if an when states choose not to participate in some mandated programs under Medicare – the issue of violation of basic principles of federalism. As complicated as some of these issues are, there is a fear that if the highest court in the land issues a decision prior to the November elections, their decision(s) may impact the election outcomes. Libertarians and conservatives however, could careless and would rather have an outcome that vindicates their position than avoiding a conflict between President Obama and Congress on the constitutionality issue regarding the mandatory provision.

The first session of the pleadings before the US Supreme Court tackled the issue whether the court has limited power; since the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 prohibits the court from striking down a tax law. In this context, it was anticipated that the minimum mandatory provision in the law would be construed as taxation. Because the mandatory provision has been the lighting rod over the enactment of the law, ruling over the law would have satisfied one group against another, probably disengaging one group from another. The Supreme Court had hired an attorney to argue that the mandatory provision was taxation, thereby disentangling the acrimony in the case. Incidentally however, the attorney got not very far as the Justices agreed to rule over the case for the failure of conviction that the minimum provision is taxation. Had the attorney convinced the justices, there would have been no need to go further, as the provision in the context of taxation wouldn't have been effective until 2015, twelve months after the unset of the provision in the law in 2014.

The argument of the solicitor-general in support of the mandatory provisions met a lot of skepticisms by Justice Kennedy on March 27th; and like this Lordship, other members on the bench were also skeptical about the direction of the government’s argument regarding the constitutionality question of the mandate. Assuming the court had found the mandatory argument as unconstitutional, the government lawyer made a weak case that could have persuaded the justices to hold back striking down just that part of the law, and allowing the remaining parts of the law to stand. If you ask an average person's opinion on the performance of the government lawyer, the answer would have been abysmal. Making an argument that all parts of the law were intertwined and that since one part of the law is found unconstitutional, the whole law must be struck down was better articulated before the judges by the opposition attorney representing the interest of the 26 States. The possibility of justifying the mandate under the interstate commerce clause, which had many precedents in past adjudications, was also not well articulated. The justices were asking questions that look very much over the head of the solicitor-general as he stumbled to make his argument. Maybe the life-line thrown to the solicitor general from Justice Ginsburg saved the day!

The severability clause was argued on the third day before the highest court. The court heard the argument regarding whether the federal government could arm-twist states to participate in the Affordable Care Act by withholding financial support of other parts of the Medicaid program in the states. The severability clause was probably the most difficult aspect of the case before the court to argue by the government lawyers, since their position was double sword: 1) Would the severability rule apply as contemplated by congress; and if not, was the leading argument for holding on to the remaining parts of the Affordable Care Act, convincing enough for the U.S. Supreme Court Justice to subscribe to holding on to the whole law? and 2) whether congress would prefer the remaining part of the law, once the constitutionality question had derailed the mandatory provision in the law? The arguments between the two titans representing the defendant and plaintiffs in the case was not lopsided; however, there was the perception at the end of the third day of argument, that the government lawyers had not done as well as they could, to allow the justices to fall in line with probably the most convicted liberal justices on the bench, who are more attuned to having the law as it stands today.

The blog tonight has attempted to do a very difficult thing, argue for the law based on the merits and benefits of the law, while at the same time, looking at the probable positions of the justices of the highest court, including contemplating if the Supreme Court will allow the law to stand as it is; or suffer the causality of poor representation of the government’s position. The analysis of the case as presented by government lawyers may have been inadequate here; however, it opens up opportunity for further consideration(s) of what is probably the best known litigation in about half a century before the US Supreme Court on a public policy issue. A somewhat consistent argument has been articulated or furthered here, in the interest of many of us, who still believe that the law is the best thing that has happened to the America’s health Care System, in the absence of a single-payer system or a complete government sponsored health care system.

More consistent analysis of the arguments before the courts would have reduced the controversies regarding the constitutionality of the law or preferences of multiple interest groups. Attorney generals of 26 states and their representing attorney, think that they advanced better arguments why the law must be knocked down for being unconstitutional. Virtually all Democrats stand by the provisions in the law; however, are ready to accept the vulnerability of some provisions of the law from antagonists. Many protagonists of the Affordable Care Act anticipate that majority of the United States Supreme Court judges will appreciate the essence of the law and side with protagonists, if not for the merits in the law but for the, Non-partisan Congressional Budget Office assessments of the financial saving from having the law. There is a sure conviction among the protagonists and supporters that majority, if not all parts of the law, will be found constitutional by the Supreme Court Justices.