To be fair, I did see, after I posted that she did add that, said that it should be included. Seems that the pledge was simple though insofar that any bill had to meet three qualifications. It clearly did and she voted no. ObamaCare is a whole different ballgame and will take unity in both houses and a Conservative occupying the Presidency for the repeal to be enacted. So to include that on her own seems monumentally naive as it's an entirely different battle. We can't win the war without winning a multitude of battles.
JMO
Cut, Cap and Balance will never pass the Senate. Obama said he would veto it. Isn’t that a losing battle too then? Does anyone who voted yes actually think this is going to become law?
“So to include that on her own seems monumentally naive as it’s an entirely different battle.”
It’s not naive. It’s very clear.
She wanted to support a bill to cut, cap and balance.
However, months ago, she made the promise that she would not support a debt ceiling increase that did not repeal Obamacare.
So at that point she was clearly faced with a choice. She could just not sign the pledge to cut cap and balance, and that action would have been out of step with her desire to cut cap and balance, or she could sign the pledge with the caveat that, as she had said long before, she would not support any bill to raise the debt limit without repealing Obamacare.
It does not require her being “naive” to include this statement. But it did require her including this statement if she was not going to flip flop on her commitment about the debt ceiling and Obamacare. The only other option would been to not sign the pledge, when the pledge is clearly in line with her philosophy.
If she had signed the pledge without including the caveat we can be sure that there are those on Free Republic that would have been lighting up this thread about her “flip flop” on Obamacare. Instead she is being castigated for being “naive.”