By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support local journalism.
Obamacare's downward spiral
Placeholder Image

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 ekes out a win in Louisiana. In plain numbers, the post-Obamacare trajectory is not 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?
The post-Obamacare Democrats include Sens. Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and perhaps another centrist or two. But there are a lot of solidly doctrinaire liberals in the post-Obamacare class: Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal, Mazie Hirono, Brian Schatz and others. They'll likely be just as lockstep as their predecessors.
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. The Washington Post reported recently that the GOP "played down its zeal to repeal" Obamacare during the midterms.
That would come as a surprise to the newly elected Republican senators -- every one of them -- who campaigned on a pledge to repeal Obamacare. It would come as a surprise to the Republican ad makers, both for campaigns and outside groups, who made commercial after commercial attacking 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."
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 in 2009 and 2010.
But the question always comes back to moderate Democrats. Could the election results, plus new leadership in the Senate, plus damaging revelations like Gruber's, and -- most importantly -- 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 Obamacare war.
Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

Where Did that Come From? - No earthly idea
67d34d8ee38f5.webp

My good friend, Delores Green asked me about this one a few weeks ago. There are several ways “No earthly” is used in speech (idea, means, purpose or reason).

This simply means ‘no conceivable…’ as it is derived from relating to earthly means of thinking.

It is impos-

sible to tell exactly who first used this expression.

The earliest known citation to a form of this is in the Dissertation in The Lusiad; Or, The Discovery of India: An Epic Poem by Luís de Camões, translated into English by William Julius Mickle, published in London, 1778:

“In the first book, Jove summons a council of the Gods, which is described at great length, for no earthly purpose but to shew that he favoured the Portuguese.”

Here it could be said that ‘no earthly purpose’ was used because the council was said to have taken place in the heavens, thus it may be a literal application. But in 1832, a clearly figurative example showed up in Trials of the Persons Concerned in the Late Riots, Before Chief Justice of Great Britain, page 10:

“…where he (the Mayor) could have no earthly idea whether the military assistance was required at that precise time or not…”