Leahy gets a head start parroting HCAN’s talking points

by Robert Maynard

There has been a lot of media attention focused on Vermont’s senior Senator’s shot across the bow of the Supreme Court Justices who are considering the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Less attention is being paid to the fact that Senator Leahy’s outburst followed closely on the heels of a discovery of a talking point memo being distributed by “Health Care for America Now”, or HCAN.  The memo in question is a strategy to promote Obamacare regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision:

White House allies are already preparing a sweeping public relations campaign in response to next month’s Supreme Court ruling on President Obama’s health care law, one aimed at building political support for the law which ever way the court rules.

The strategy focuses on what the memo from an official at the group Health Care for America Now describes as “‘real people’ stories,” and the memo instructs allies that “people with stories and other speakers need to be recruited, trained and prepared to respond within 24 hours by the end of May.”

The memo was emailed to allies today by Herndon Alliance official Peter Van Vranken, (who said it was prepared by another liberal group, Health Care for American Now) and obtained by BuzzFeed, offers a glimpse into the broad campaign to save the Patien Protection and Affordable Care Act, which remains unpopular two years after its controversial passage, but some of whose provisions have broad popular support. The Herndon Alliance was described by Politico in 2009 as “the most influential group in the health arena that the public has never heard of,” is centrally coordinating liberal public relations efforts around health care. Health Care for America Now is another central liberal umbrella group that was central to campaigns to back the health care law.

As already mentioned here and here, HCAN is a well funded national astroturf coalition of left wing groups with backing from George Soros and a virtual who’s who of major leftist donors.  They have been actively involved in pushing Obamacare on the American people from the beginning.  Having put a ton of resources into this effort they are not about to allow minor inconveniences like the rejection at the polls by the American people in 2010, or the possibility of the whole mess being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, stop them from realizing their agenda of  government control over our health care system.

As noted in the memo: “The final messaging will be either celebratory or agitational in tone depending on the result,” it looks like Senator Leahy is getting a head start on setting the “agitational” tone.   What I find ironic is his assertion regarding Chief Justice Roberts:

“I trust that he will be a chief justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch,” said Leahy. “The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the court. Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce.”

What about the well funded ideological effort to force this on the American people despite its lack of popularity?  Further irony from Senator Leahy: “I was struck by how little respect some of the justices showed to Congress, and of how dismissive they were of the months of work in hearings and committee actions and debate of amendments and motions and points of order on the Senate and House floors before the measure was enacted.”  What about how little respect the Congress and President showed to the American people and our Democratic system?

Who can forget the billions of dollar in bribes it took the get Obamacare passed:

* The Cornhusker Kickback?

* $300,000,000 of bribes to Louisiana’s Senator Mary Landrieu?

* A new hospital in Connecticut for morally challenged Senator Chris Dodd?

* Roughly ten billion in community health centers to buy off Vermont’s Bernie Sanders?

* An exemption of Bill Nelson’s Florida constituents from the Medicare Advantage cuts applicable to everyone else

* A threat to take away Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman’s committee chairmanship unless he falls into line

While we are taking a trip down memory lane, let’s not forget Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that members of Congress  must “Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What’s In It.”  In the end the bill did not have enough votes for cloture on a Senate filibuster, so the measure was rammed through the reconciliation process.  The Democrats paid dearly in the 2010 elections for ramming through such an unpopular bill and now the Supreme Court just may be on the verge of declaring the whole thing unconstitutional.  They are now engaged in a desperate last ditch effort to salvage their efforts and do not have much time left to do so.  Strike one was the 2010 elections, strike two may be the Supreme Court decision with strike three coming in the November elections.  According to current polls, this latest attempt to sell the American people on an agenda designed to allow a government takeover of the health care system is not succeeding any better than previous efforts.

One thought on “Leahy gets a head start parroting HCAN’s talking points

  1. My comments to Sen. Leahy.
    From: lesmimia@msn.com
    To: leahy@leahy.senate.gov
    Subject: Your statement on May 15, 2012 on the Supreme court’s review of the Affordable Care Act.
    Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 15:01:03 -0400

    Senator Patrick Leahy

    Reference: your statement on May 15, 2012 on the Supreme court’s review of the Affordable Care Act.

    Our founding fathers saw the need for the restraining power of the Judiciary when the legislature goes beyond the lines that mark the limits of discretion and to ensure that the constitutional protections of human rights are not subverted, intentionally or unintentionally. When asked, they provide judicial reviews and render their opinions. This is one of those occasions.

    The first point in your commentary, links a supposed viewpoint of the future Chief Justice Roberts to the Bush vs Gore decision in 2000. To assume that he saw it the same way as you is not only an over-reach, but a continued miss-representation of what actually occurred.

    The US Supreme Court did not make a decision that determined the outcome of the 2000 election. The Sec. of State certified the election on Nov. 22. US Code requires that after 6 days prior to electoral college meeting, congress cannot change the results. There was no practical way for Florida to meet that Dec. 12 deadline, and cherry picking Counties to recount and visual interpretations of voter intent with hanging chads were contrary to a democratic election (as a Constitutional equal protection issue). The US Supreme Court reaffirmed that there could only be one election nationally, and it must occur on the same day with the state laws prevailing on election day remaining in effect. The Florida Supreme Court subsequently concurred with this US Supreme Court decision and an UN-official re-vote count showed that no change in the results would have occurred had there been an official re-count in Florida.

    The public reaction to Bush vs Gore was a consequence of an uniformed public and the lack of better explanations from those, like yourself that knew better. To view that 5-4 decision as partisan and allow it to shake the confidence of the American people is a dereliction of the responsibility of your public office. Partisan politicians responded to that public opinion by reinforcing it to gain favor with their constituents, thus closing the circle of misinformation.

    Regarding your commentary on the Supreme court review of The Affordability Care Act, we again see a poisoning of public opinion for partisan purposes. If the Supreme Court returns an opinion different than yours, you would like us to believe it resulted from judicial activism, not from careful thought, with proper “judicial modesty, honoring precedent – – and that will undoubtedly further erode the reputation and legitimacy of the Supreme Court”. The respect that you want from the Supreme Court for the Legislature is not returned in your characterization here of the Court.

    The legislature has unlimited opportunity to provide social necessities within the framework of our Constitutional freedoms. To anguish over Legislative indiscretions that the court may define as an over-reach, is shortsighted. The Legislature can go back to the drawing board and get it right, to achieve the desired end without infringing on liberty and freedoms. Observe the ingenuity and invention that occurs continuously in the private sector. The public rightfully expects the same from its elected representatives. While all this hand wringing in advance of a decision may be useful for partisan politics, it further poisons the public view of a congress that we expect to work together to serves our national interest.

    It has been nearly twelve years since Bush vs Gore, which wasn’t the only time that the electoral college differed from the popular vote. There has been ample time to formulate a constitutional change that would provide greater assurance that the electoral college vote would reflect the popular vote. Even now, the Senate Judiciary Committee can and should begin this useful public discussion.


    Leslie J. Allen


    Ad feedback|


Comments are closed.