THE REPUBLICANS & THE COUNTRY.
What plans do they really have?
It was undoubtedly a truism that the Republican Party Congressional majority would cause it "to rain" on the United States Supreme Court's day, when the court would put its seal of approval on the Affordable Care (Health) Act.
The court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., would arrive at a positive decision on the Affordable Care (Health) Act; which, to the Republicans, was unconstitutional. So, they showed their indignation about the decision in several ways in the media on Thursday.
The Affordable Health bill has been signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010, and now the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality and therefore there should be no more qualms about it.
However, the Republicans were rallying, even after the Supreme Court's decision, to politicise, as well as polarize the issue among citizens, and saying that its implementation was impossible.
Needless to say that the landmark decision by the Supreme Court has stunned the Republican Party almost into oblivion. The ruling was a "victory" for Obama; its membership surmised; and that was true in every sense of the word. Therefore its leadership would be doing all it could to thwart the president's reelection effort.
First, they would proceed to cite and then vote on a contempt of Congress charge against Attorney General Eric Holder, an Obama appointee, for refusing to submit more documentation to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-C); and second, they would drag the whole country through a morass of controversies to create an atmosphere of confusion and disunity, en mass, in an election year.
Mitt Romney, who happened to be the Republican Party's candidate to run against Obama in the 2012 presidential race has vowed to repeal the Affordable Care (Health) law, if he should win the election; though, he himself has had an "individual mandate" clause in a health care plan for Massachusetts, when he was that state's governor a while back.
Despite the landmark decision by the Supreme Court, the Republican majority went on with the charade of voting on the Holder contempt citation, while a major part of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives, comprising mostly of Democrats, unsurprisingly staged a walk out from the chamber during the vote. "We will not participate," they angrily said.
As said before, Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has escalated the fight over "Fast and Furious", the controversial program involving gun running by a department of the Federal government to Mexico under Holder. A border agent has been killed, and a gun that was part of the "sale" to the Mexican drug cartels was found at the scene of the crime. It was an incident that Holder knew very little about.
However, Holder and the DOJ have submitted enough documents, with respect to the issue; but then, Issa, whom many thought was politically motivated, was demanding more paperwork to cover the investigation his committee was conducting on the matter; hence, the tug-of-war resulting between him and Holder; though, he (Issa) knew that the program was a sting operation, and so not all the facts about it could be revealed.
The Republican Party has had its face rubbed in the mud by the ruling of the highest court in the land, and it would want to drag the whole country with it in the somewhat disgraceful and embarrassing episode it has suffered; yet, was that fair?
Its members in Congress spoke about bipartisanship and paid lip service to unity in the country, but when did they ever compromise with the Democrats on anything? (Remember the debt ceiling and deficit reduction talks in 2011, ending in the U.S. losing its credit rating?).
The demeanor of the party in general would get worse, particularly for 2012 being an election year, and the "tea party" members would become rowdy on the campaign trail, trying to divert attention to the "failures of the Obama administration," and causing all kinds of distractions on behalf of Mitt Romney; but that would not work.
Why? Because the party has not presented the nation with any specific, economic and/or health care plan, except being vociferous about repealing "Obamacare", creating jobs and bringing the Keystone Oil pipeline project back to life again; but how? They were telling nobody. However, that alone would not be enough to resuscitate the crabby economy that a Republican administration had handed down to Obama after the 2008 presidential election.
Now it (Republican Party) was relying on the word of a businessman, who has failed in business more times than his successes, to redeem the country from the same economic quagmire that Obama was diligently getting the nation out of.
He (Obama) was very close to bringing the economy from the brink of disaster, with it (economy) now in a recovery mode, despite all the obstacles that were being placed in his way by his detractors. Unemployment was going down, and employment by the private sector kept rising. His economic policies were showing signs of holding strong amidst internal and external fiscal upheavals and declines.
Romney's own financial holdings were predominantly located outside the U.S.; and only just he and his numerous accountants actually knew his net worth, because they would not (or never) reveal it to anyone else. If he should become president, the IRS and other oversight organizations in the country would go after him, as they would initiate several investigations into his personal and family finances; and that situation alone could hold the country back for many months, if not years.
Have the Republicans thought about that? Independent voters (like myself) were thinking about that too.
P.S. The Salt Lake City Olympic games that Romney took over became an "earmark" problem for the U.S. Congress to solve. (Meaning, thanks to U.S. taxpayer, he would have failed there too).