Democrats said that depending on the race, they will have a proper response for those well-worn attacks, whether it’s emphasizing the positive and popular aspects of the law, criticizing Republicans for wanting to take them away or pivoting to attack the GOP for favoring the Medicare-changing budget of Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.).
The ruling “doesn’t change the fundamental reality that Republican incumbents are on defense over their votes now, particularly on the GOP budget and what it does to Medicare,” said one Democratic campaign operative in Washington, D.C.
But the ruling did provide an instant fundraising injection for both parties, who began sending missives almost immediately. Presumptive GOP White House nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign reported raising more than $2.5 million in response to the ruling as of late Thursday afternoon.
Meanwhile, the high court’s decision seemed to solidify a Democratic acceptance of the once-pejorative term “Obamacare.”
In a fundraising email to supporters from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday, a graphic next to her message said “STAND UP FOR OBAMACARE.”
That comes three months after David Axelrod, a senior aide to Obama, sent out an email to supporters with the subject line, “Hell yeah, I like Obamacare.”
Yet it seems unlikely, operatives said, that Democratic candidates in competitive districts or states will be using the term.
Another messaging plus for Democrats: No one will be able to attack the law as unconstitutional now. Any GOP admakers who readied TV spots criticizing Democratic politicians for voting in favor of “unconstitutional Obamacare” will have go back to their editing rooms. And that could dull the edge of some GOP attacks, national Democrats said.
But the fact that the constitutionality of the law was premised on the individual mandate — the requirement that all Americans get health insurance — being a tax is a potential talking point for Republicans.
“Obamacare is a tax on middle class Americans,” an RNC spokeswoman said in an email Thursday. Whether that line of attack has any traction remains to be seen, but some operatives suspect it might.
“What it does for Republicans, most importantly, is it allows Republicans to say ... ‘This is a massive, unprecedented tax, as defined by the Supreme Court,’” Democratic pollster Dave Beattie said.
As the debate over health care raged in 2009 and 2010, the president and his allies vociferously denied that the penalty for not buying health insurance was a tax.
That rejection was probably not without roots in a political strategy.
In 2008, the president promised that middle-class families wouldn’t see their taxes go up.
As the dust on the decision settles, the long days of summer will transition into the final stretch of the 2012 campaign and the political ramifications will become clearer.
But for now, Chief Justice John Roberts, in his historic decision, perhaps put its political import most succinctly.
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments,” he wrote. “Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”
Rep. Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., left, David Goldman, center, and Arvind Chawdra right, attend a news conference in the Rayburn House Office Building on international child abduction. Goldman and Chawdra are fathers whose children were abducted by their mothers and taken abroad.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.