RUSH: Now, there's a piece by Peter Boyer here in The Daily Beast. Peter Boyer once profiled me in Vanity Fair. I know Peter Boyer, and he's a fair guy. I actually really like Peter Boyer. Every time I've seen him... This is way, way back in the early nineties. I haven't stayed in touch with him on a regular basis, but whenever I do... He's still got my e-mail address, and I'll probably hear from him now. He has a piece in the Daily Beast. He works with Tina Brown. Tina Brown ran Vanity Fair back when he wrote there and she runs The Daily Beast now. And he's got a piece here entitled, "The Case for Losing Obamacare," and we talked about the this in the previous hour. The left has come up -- a lot of people have come up -- with political analysis of this that says, "No matter what happens, it's bad news for Obama."
To varying and differing degrees, but it's still bad for Obama. And the way it's bad for him if he wins, if this is found constitutional, is that it makes his reelection effort so much harder because there's so much public opposition to this. And having the court find this constitutional will take us back to the energized Tea Party days that led to the 2010 midterms. And, folks, remember the name Scott Brown, the senator from Massachusetts who won the seat previously held by Senator Kennedy? He won that seat for one reason: He promised to vote against Obamacare. In Massachusetts, he won that seat for that reason. Now, people like to forget that and they like to chalk up different reasons for his victory, but that was the primary reason.
Now, he's running against an avowed Marxist by the name of Elizabeth Warren, a genuine Kennedy liberal this time around. We'll see how that goes. But he won that seat, and the 2010 midterms were all about the Tea Party and the rest of the American people going to the polls to say they didn't want this Obamacare. They want it repealed, and to get rid of it party who gave it to us. And that's what it was about. So the theory is that if Obama wins this by having it found constitutional, that whole mind-set in the American people is gonna be reignited, and the Republican enthusiasm will turn out and vote against Democrats (no matter who the Republican nominee is).
They're gonna be just as intense as they were in 2010 and Obama's gonna lose, and that's the fear that they have. My reaction is, "So what?" If they get this passed, this is something you retire on. This is such an achievement that, "Okay, go ahead and head to the golf course for the rest of your life, or go run the United Nations or the World Trade Organization. Go run a global body or what have you." No Democrat president ever will be said to do more if this thing passes. Then the other side of it is: If it's declared unconstitutional, then Obama is saved by the same theory. There will not be all this opposition to Obama to vote against him, and therefore he has a better chance to win.
The political analysis runs all over the political backyard.
So that's why I look at this piece by Peter Boyer, "The Case for Losing Obamacare -- While a Supreme Court rejection of Obamacare this summer would be an embarrassment for the president, and an obvious blow to his legacy, a case can be made that a health-care defeat in the high court might actually benefit Obama in his reelection campaign," and, after all, isn't that what really matters? If you go to the White House and ask them, "What's really the most important thing you're doing today? Is it trying to get this thing declared constitutional or winning reelection?" I think hands-down (chuckling) and believe me, it's a close call. But hands-down it's winning reelection.
That's what really matters. Even the grand and glorious victory for social justice like Obamacare pales in comparison to the overriding need to get Obama reelected so he can finish the job on America. Back to Mr. Boyer: "Apart from the fact that Republicans would lose their most animating issue in the presidential race, the overturning of the health-care reform law would free Obama of the burden of having to mount a broad defense of his health-care plan as a centerpiece of his campaign." Wait a minute. I thought everybody loved it, Peter! I thought everybody loved Obamacare! I thought the Democrats loved it. I thought this the greatest thing ever!
Remember there was an Obama pollster who told us shortly after it was passed (paraphrased): "Don't worry what the polls say now. In a couple years, people are going to love this." I've got the story in the stack. The Obama pollster, two years ago, said, "People are gonna love this once it gets implemented." People don't love it. It has been implemented in part -- and there are waivers and there are exemptions galore, it's so wonderful. So this "would free Obama of the burden of having to mount a broad defense of his health-care plan as a centerpiece of his campaign." I thought people were gonna love it so much that that would be a ticket to reelection, to run around and say (impression), "That health care plan, remember? That was mine! And I know you love it, and I know everybody else loves it, and that alone is why I should be reelected."
They don't want to say that? I wonder why. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, can anybody think of a single Barack Obama accomplishment that will not be a burden to defend in his campaign? There's not one thing in Obama's record he wants to run on. Not one. That's why this phony, contrived, so-called Republican war on women. That's why this diversion of trying to make women think Republicans want to take their birth control pills away from 'em. Because Obama can't run on his record. And, Peter (I know you know this but probably can't write it), there's not a single Obama accomplishment that is not a burden to defend in his campaign. There's not a single accomplishment that he can point to. In fact, every one of them he's going to have to ignore.
But that's what comes of governing against the will of the people.
That's what you end up with.
RUSH: It's fascinating here to watch the media say: No matter how this Supreme Court rules it's a win-win for Obama (which is really what's going on). It's a win-win no matter what happens! Remember the two-year anniversary for Obamacare was recently? There was no party for it, and Obama didn't show up anywhere to signify it, and Peter Boyer at the end of his piece writes: "If that or any other legal argument against Obamacare persuades a majority of the justices, it would certainly place a cloud over Obama’s first-term record. But Obama might well see a silver lining in November." In other words, the Daily Beast thinks that Obamacare, if you read the whole piece, would be better off dead so that Obama can run on the rest of his splendid record of achievement. He'd be better off.