Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Gene Lyons: President Obama, ditch bipartisan rhetoric, enact healthcare reform w/o AMA, GOP

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 07:34 AM
Original message

Gene Lyons: President Obama, ditch bipartisan rhetoric, enact healthcare reform w/o AMA, GOP

Sickly talk about fixing healthcare
President Obama, ditch the rhetoric about bipartisanship and enact reform with or without the GOP and the AMA

By Gene Lyons

Jun. 18, 2009

President Barack Obama was elected with perhaps the best chance in a generation to reform America's unjust and grotesquely inefficient healthcare system. To do so, however, he'll have to conquer not only entrenched special interests like the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and the American Medical Association but also his own sentimental rhetoric about bipartisanship.

According to Washington Post columnist David Broder, "The president has told visitors that he would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52 to 48." That kind of talk gets a certain kind of Beltway pundit purring like a housecat on a windowsill.

It's a mistake, anyway. As the source for this heartwarming anecdote was evidently Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who recently dispatched a peevish Twitter message complaining about Obama's "sightseeing" while visiting France to commemorate D-Day, perhaps it needn't be taken too seriously.

Possibly it's a political head-fake, with Obama appearing reasonable and accommodating in the face of GOP hysteria over "socialized medicine" and "government rationing." Here's Karl Rove writing in the Wall Street Journal: "If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state." Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., predicted a ruined economy with Americans needing to ask government permission to visit their doctors.

Kind of the way seniors do under Medicare, I suppose, which is basically what the "public option" consists of: an opportunity for Americans to buy into a government-run health insurance plan like that currently available to federal employees. Or to stick with whatever private health insurance program -- employer provided or not -- makes sense to them.

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/18/lyons/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 07:44 AM
Response to Original message

1. It's not going to happen that way and I'm tired of listening to this.

Landireu, Lieberman, Bayh, and the list goes on---on the Dem side(Lieberman was a wild card) but people like Bayh and his 13 conservadems who already cut the Dems down from 59 to 46---and we don't know which way Spector will go. They already guaranteed we have no votes and the Repubs vote together.

I had thought there would be health care reform. Now we don't have that because of other democrats. So I'm tired of people saying Obama should push this or that and get it done without bipartiscanship. They think that means that Obama is going to sweeten the deal for them----he just wants to guarantee his votes because it is blatantly clear he doesn't have it and it doesn't look like he'll have a deal.

I think people need to back off, see what the political is and note that we're fucked and it's not because Obama isn't trying. I want to hear people take responsibility and that goes for the damned writers to take on Congress. We know where Obama stands and what he's pushing but Congress doesn't give a fuck about us and I don't know where they stand----yet there is little talk about that.

For Landrieu to come out publicly and forewarn that if there is a public option she won't vote for reform already tells me what's going on and I'm fed up with post after post demanding Obama do something when he's crippled by a fucked up Congress. At least with some Republican votes we could see if he could get the 51 votes----but we won't even get that it seems since the Repubs are in it together and everyone else is telling him to tell them to fuck off.

I've already seen what's going on and both ways we're screwed. We try to sweeten the deal for Repubs we got nothing. We don't ask them on board or at least guarantee 6-7 Repubs we have a bit more except it's not perfect. IN the end...we got NOTHING!!!

I want to see an article after the damned conservadems in congress...I'm tired of this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. Lyons goes after the 'cow state' Democrats who are proposing mushy compromises.

Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 07:51 AM by flpoljunkie

(Gene Lyons is right. 'Obama shouldn't negotiate with himself.' He must lead.)

Even so, all the scare talk has Senate Democrats from the "cow states," as H.L. Mencken called them -- Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- proposing mushy compromises involving federally chartered co-ops, as if there weren't already co-ops aplenty among the nation's estimated 1,300 health insurance companies.

Alas, absent serious public competition and a mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance as they do auto insurance, our present Rube Goldberg system can only get worse. "If we fail to act," Obama told the AMA, "premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans."

Happy talk aside, if winning this epochal battle takes a 50-49 vote with no Republicans among the majority, then that's what it takes. Above all, Obama shouldn't negotiate with himself.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/18/lyons/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #3

12. Uh...what does this mean to my post?

You realize it means nothing because my post still stands as is. Did you not see my numbers? He'll be under 50 votes and he put in reconciliation so he needs 51 votes to get it passed; 50 won't get it passed. Oy.

A quick social studies refresher: It takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate. However, any Senator can mount a filibuster which prevents the Senate from voting on a measure (movie buffs may remember Jimmy Stewart mounting a one-man filibuster in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). It takes 60 Senators shut down a filibuster by voting for �cloture�.

Reconciliation protection means filibusters are not allowed. Democrats (and the Independents who caucus withthem) now number 58 Senators (with a 59th, Al Franken, on the way from Minnesotta). Consequently, Democrats need only hold on to 50 votes to pass health care reform legislation. Vice President Joe Biden would be happy to provide the 51st vote. Not a single Republican vote would be needed.

http://alankatz.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/reconciliation-puts-health-care-reform-on-fast-track-and-gop-in-bind/

I already gave the probable numbers and that's being generous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Phoebe Loosinhouse

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #1

4. "We know where Obama stands and what he's pushing"

Could you please elaborate on that? I may have missed it, but I have not heard a clear statement from the President himself about where he stands and what he's pushing aside from some very broad generalizations. Is he himself clearly for a true public option?

I don't see the leadership coming from him on healthcare in terms of specifics and it looks more and more that we are going to be rolled by the Blue Dogs and the Repubs without UNAMBIGUOUS guidance from the President on healthcare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #4

5. Good point. Obama says he wants a public option, but he was pushing 'health insurance exchanges.'

Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 08:57 AM by flpoljunkie

Health insurance exchanges are not a public option, although a public option could be one of the choices, as I understand. Ezra Klein pointed out that Kathleen Sibelius was promoting Kent Conrad's co-op plan as a public option, which it is not. 'Public' means run by the government.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/a_simple_test_for_the_public_p.html

Are we being rolled by a Congress who appears to represent the interests of the healthcare industry before the public interest. It seems so at this point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #5

9. OH MY God....that option is for people who want to keep their health care.

Why is that so hard for people to grasp?! He stated this during the elections and he stated this on the road that for people who want to keep their private insurance he'll work with those companies to lower cost and open the door for people to sample and change their insurance. Why is this hard to grasp? He's stated this over and over again.

But he's always stood by a public option which allows the 51 million to be insured. Check the message below you and watch the video carefully.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #9

19. Obama on HIE's from his AMA speech. HIE's would be a one-stop shop with a public option included.

If you don�t like your health coverage or don�t have any insurance, you will have a chance to take part in what we�re calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that�s best for you and your family � just as federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a Member of Congress. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. And one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/primary_documents_obama_speaks.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #19

27. You're reading it incorrectly from what I can see.

One of the options of health plans is the public option along side the other plans.

You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. And one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.

The public option is one of the plans with a basic package. It's alongside the other health care plans being offered. Obama has always said the public option should meet the basic needs of it's consumers.

So I don't know what you're talking about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #27

28. A public option would be one of the choices in the HIE. And, a co-op is not a public plan.

He needs to tell his HHS Secretary what a co-op is and is not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #28

31. Where are you reading this?

The Public Option is an entirely separate issue. Is it determined and explained in detail anywhere that it is part of the HIE. Because that is not what I read or have heard from President Obama in all his mentions on health care reform. That's why I don't get your point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #31

33. From Obama's AMA speech. Co-op not being a public plan is from Ezra Klein, altho he likes co-ops.

Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 11:21 AM by flpoljunkie

If you don�t like your health coverage or don�t have any insurance, you will have a chance to take part in what we�re calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that�s best for you and your family � just as federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a Member of Congress. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. And one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/primary_documents_obama_speaks.html

A Simple Test for the Public Plan

In general, you can figure out whether something is a public plan by asking a single question: Is it run by the public sector? If no, then it's not a public plan. Simple as that.

This is another way of saying that whatever Kent Conrad's co-op plan idea is, it's not a public plan. Conrad's idea for private co-ops that would offer health insurance -- an idea I'm on record saying I like -- is not run by the public sector. That's why he compares it to Ocean Spray, the co-op that makes cranberry juice, rather than Medicare. It is, in other words, not a public plan. And Kathleen Sebelius shouldn't be implying otherwise.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/a_simple_test_for_the_public_p.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #33

34. I'm still not understanding.

How are you connecting the two arguments? Where did Obama say co-op. I already stated the public plan/option is a separate entity all together, you know that right. There are two ways that have been suggested it would be run, one by the government or by a non-profit agency. This is why I don't understand your connection.

I also don't understand what Sebelius has said that is contrary to Obama or leads someone to believe there is this "co-op" idea. Further more, this is a coined term right? No one other than this guy has said anything about co-ops. Lastly, I tend to be a bit weary of WSJ articles. I've heard Kathleen Sebelius speak on this on Morning Joe and in front of committees...so I think someone is reading and interpreting the information wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #34

35. Did you read the link to Sibelius' comments on co-ops? Have excerpted from the link below.

Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 11:32 AM by flpoljunkie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601177.html

However, Sebelius stressed that Obama is open to compromise on the shape of the public plan, which doesn't have to be run by the government. She spoke positively of a compromise idea that envisions consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives, like rural electricity or agriculture co-ops. They would get started with seed money from taxpayers but then compete without government control. The plan by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., may end up in a health overhaul bill to be unveiled by the Senate Finance Committee this week.

( A public plan is by definition run by the government.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #35

38. No...that's someone's interpretation of her words, that's not her words.

Please don't confuse the two. Do you understand my point? Based on the quotes in the article...nothing suggests what the writer is saying. I need to see the video of her statements. Which you've, obviously, not seen either. You are taking someone's interpretation as gold and saying it's her own words. That's misleading and disingenuous.

And I'll look for the video and watch it on my own.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #38

45. I do hope you are right about Sibelius.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #45

49. Well I've seen her speak on this countless times. Here are the vids I speak of:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/11/sebelius_health_care_spending_an_investment.html

^ Her on Morning Joe

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31387083/ns/politics-white_house/

Here are some more vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxahzzH9XD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIN9-jMaEO0

This was shown on c-span and unfortunately I can't find it in it's entirety. Keep in mind it's a 90 minute video so these are just small clips.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RepStark&view=videos

One of the committee members even talked about subsidizing medical education so they can keep doctors in their location.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #49

55. The article is clear, and they have not corrected it. A co-op is not a public plan.

However, Sebelius stressed that Obama is open to compromise on the shape of the public plan, which doesn't have to be run by the government. She spoke positively of a compromise idea that envisions consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives, like rural electricity or agriculture co-ops. They would get started with seed money from taxpayers but then compete without government control. The plan by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., may end up in a health overhaul bill to be unveiled by the Senate Finance Committee this week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601177.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #55

56. I want to see where she said this..pass me the video.

Because I can't find the video they're talking about. AGain, you're quoting me someones interpretation.

I don't have any record of her saying how it could be run like rural electricity. I really don't. The non-profit entity was mentioned as a possible option, but nothing verified as Obama says this is mainly funded and supported by the government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #56

63. There is no video. There has been no correction from the WaPo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #63

69. So, that doesn't mean their interpretation is correct.

Edited on Fri Jun-19-09 03:27 PM by vaberella

I need to see where she said this. From what I can gather this is during a public forum---there must be a video on her saying this information for this guy to interpret this. I'm going by all the videos she's put out and her talking on public option. There is no talk of this co-op crap you're peddling and this WaPo author is peddling. Actually their the first I've heard talk about it.

Nothing she's said suggests that either---and I've watched much of her stuff.

At this point the WaPo piece is an Op-Ed and after the amount of mistakes Krugman has made in his Op-Eds---I'll take this with a grain of salt.

I just see this as a way to get people riled up yet with no bloody proof. I supplied you with several of her videos and yet you're giving me one piece where I can't see where she's implying such a thing and it's definitely an interpretation since there are NO QUOTES! within the piece you keep posting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jun-20-09 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #69

72. Are you kidding me? Baucus is pushing co-ops and Sibelius seems very interested.

Edited on Sat Jun-20-09 11:06 AM by flpoljunkie

If you refuse to see it, I can't help you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sisters6

(351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #5

24. Gibbs seemed pleased with the report of the gang of 4 yesterday.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #4

8. You're kidding me right? You didn't hear what Obama demanded a few days ago?

You don't see his town halls on Health care as counting for anything or leadership? He didn't write the bill for the stimulus package but he did for push for it. He's putting the same amount on pressure on Congress for this---but he's not doing anything is what you're saying...

Oh well then...well wow. Obama is a one man show and what you'll tell me is that Congress does nothing and it's all about Obama even though he pushes and advocates for a public option continuously.

So nothing here was specific, it wasn't showing leadership?: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/obama-ama-speech-full-tex_n_215699.html

A "true public option?" What do you define to be a true public option. Single payer isn't it. Single payer actually doesn't give you an option...and I hope people get a clue. He advocated for a public option one that is amongst private insurance. He advocated for it during the primaries and now----yet he's now not pushing a "true public option." Please, please, don't define yourself what a public option is that Obama has always stood by and stated the criteria was.

But that's neither here nor there...you already stated your position.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Phoebe Loosinhouse

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #8

23. Thanks for the link.

I read the entire text of his speech, which I did miss, and it's the most specific I've heard him being since the Presidential campaign.

This is Obama's healthcare recommendations in the budget. No mention of a public option that I can see
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_key_healthcare/

This is the White House"s OWN website healthreform.gov. - you can read EVERY single page and not find out what Obama's plan for reform actually is aside from the budget page above. All you will find is report after report detailing how what we have does not work.
http://healthreform.gov/

I watched and read the townhall - He mentions and supports a public option, but does not really define it.

I believe that healthcare reform will rise and fall on the issue of a public option and exactly HOW that public option is structured.
(My definition of a "true" public option is one that is fully funded by the government, is available to any who want it, is accepted by the majority of providers, and is not stigmatized as the "poverty option"- all these are traits that people who do not want a "real" public option are attempting to gut.) I have not seen President Obama DEFINE the public option although I have seem Schumer, Grassley and Baucus try to derail and gut a public option for the benefit of the insurance companies and the status quo. THIS IS WHERE PRESIDENT OBAMA NEEDS TO GUIDE. You stated that Obama has always stated what the criteria was for a public option - could you share that, because darned if I can find it. Thanks in advance.

The President and his spokespeople have to be FAR more pro-active and aggressive about putting forth their views and convincing the American people that not only can we afford real reform, we can't NOT afford it. They need to really attack on the fiscal responsibility grounds, because this is where the enemies of health reform are focusing. We can afford unlimited wars, but somehow not healthcare for the American people.

Healthcare was THE issue of the Presidential campaign after war, and I can't believe it looks like once again the moment is being seized and diverted by the status quo assholes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

brentspeak

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #8

50. "Single-payer actually doesn't give you an option..."

So individuals won't be able to purchase private health insurance if single-payer is enacted? Is that what you're claiming?

Do you even know what the term "public option" means in this current debate?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Political Heretic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #8

53. What you have said about single payer is not accurate.

In most places that we would reference as having a single payer system. People can still optionally buy private insurance. (One example would be the UK, though I think there are more model systems to examine out there)

People have qualms about a so-called "public option" simply because it can mean anything under the sun. And when the administrations spokespersons are pressed on what a "public option" means they never have an answer. Quote (as reported on NPR), "I don't know... it could take a variety of forms."

To people like me, that translates into bullshit. When politicians say something could take a "variety of forms" it usually means we're going to get screwed out of what we deserve.

In contrast, people demonstrating in support of a single-payer system have some very specific ideas about what that means. They're asking for some guaranteed health care RIGHTS, only one of which is access - and that's why its important.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MadHound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #1

6. Except every Democratic president has had to face recalcitrant Dems in Congress,

Yet many managed to flog these Dems into passing their legislation. LBJ was a master of this, FDR was even better. Even Carter had his moments. Part of the job of president is the ability to lead Congress, and one way or the other, get Congress to do what the president wants them to do. I see none of that with Obama.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #6

10. Obama has an ENTIRE Republican party except maybe 1, maybe.

And then an 13+ dems who are against him. Please, put those numbers in perspective and the fact that some of these people have publicly stated they don't want him to be successful. I'm also listing 13 of the conservadems, this is not counting the wild cards like Lieberman (a man who wanted, along with Graham, to take Congress hostage) and Spector who doesn't even want the Employee Free Choice Act. So he's up against a seriously deficient Senate----that's not even counting the House, which I don't think is handicap, but I'm sure they're not far behind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MadHound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #10

15. And LBJ had the entire Southern tier of Democrats against him,

Along with the Republican party, yet the man was a master of strong arming Congress and immediately put that to good use, and voila, within six months we had the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Complaining about a GODDAMN DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS being obstructionist is lame, it's nothing more than a bullshit excuse. If Obama can't get people in his own party to move, then his leadership capabilities are worthless and he needs to step aside in 2012 in favor of somebody who can actually lead.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #15

17. I thought we didn't want to strong arm. Isn't that what Bush did?

I will say that I'm not knowledgeable about LBJ as some on this board are. But I find these statements on "strong-arming" the Congress as questionable because Bush did I thought we wanted Obama to respect the division of power. Added to that I see that Obama did strong arm---through reconciliation which is all he can do in the legal and political sphere. Plus he's getting a populus movement as he should. However, it won't be enough because our political structure is extremely corrupt and it falls on them.

You think because Obama is Pres things can go through---we don't live in a monarchy where the king can strong-arm or otherwise parliament, or put forth a decree and it's law. We have divisions of power and those need to be respected. If this is a mark on him as a leader---as you suggest. Well to each his own considering most of these people have rather conservative demographics and are responding to that. Added to that...I guess that makes Obama worthless. As so many have been calling out on DU---he can be voted out for someone stronger in 2012.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MadHound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #17

20. Then I suggest that you study your history, as should Obama,

And see how LBJ, FDR and others got things done with Congress. Strong arming Congress isn't about disrespecting the division of power in Congress, it's how a President accomplishes his agenda, and it has been a time honored tactic since almost the very beginning of this country. If you don't strong arm Congress to a certain degree, you accomplish little or nothing, which is the direction Obama seems to be heading.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #20

26. You've got to be kidding me right? You're acting like it's all the same.

The conditions would be different, the roles are different, the personality is different. You're speaking in absolutes----there is none here. And history doesn't repeat itself like so many like to think. What happens is that there may be similarities but the conditions are very different---with wholly different outcomes.

I suggest you run for President next time. I'm not even joking or being snarky---I realize more and more there should be more players in the field as so many think they have better ideas and better plans of execution. I say go for it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MadHound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #26

30. You're right, the conditions are different

Unlike many other presidents, who were able to get their agendas through Congress, Obama has large, almost bulletproof majorities in the House and Senate. So why isn't he taking advantage of this fact? Why is he trying so hard to be "bipartisan" and thus watering his agenda and bills down to nothing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #30

32. Becase we have a Congress who in my opinion are made up of Republicans

Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 11:02 AM by vaberella

who call themselves dems. Did you see what happened with Sanders credit card cap bill? It barely got 33 ayes. If credit card cap couldn't get through where people are losing their jobs and life due to a an economic melt down and definitely a good number of Dems turned it down. Nothing can get through unless most people decide not to vote.

Edit: Or they were blackmailed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

paulk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #17

70. maybe YOU didn't want a strong arm...

By any objective measure, GW Bush as President was horribly effective at getting the legislation he wanted passed.

Obama might do well to study his methods, instead of the "let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya" approach he's used so far.

Blaming Congress when healthcare reform fails isn't going to cut it - the blame goes to the person at the top of the pecking order - and that person is Barack Obama.

He promised us he'd be a leader -

He needs to start leading.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Political Heretic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #10

54. Give me a fucking break.

Democrats won both the house with huge numbers.

Democrats won the Senate and are on our way to even a 60 person majorty.

Democrats also now control the White House.

All I ever listen to are excuses. From 2000-2004 it was waah we can't do anything because the Republicans are too powerful and the president is too popular and if we do anything we'll lose 2004. Then Democrats lost the 2004 election.

From 2004-2006 it was waaah we can't do anything because the Republicans are too powerful and we don't control either house of Congress. Then Democrats won both the House and Senate in 2006.

Then from 2006-2008 it was waaah we can't do anything because we don't have a fillibuster proof majority and Republicans are too powerful and we need the Presidency. Then they won the Presidency.

So where we are... having given the Democratic Party LITERALLY everything they could fucking hope for. And we are STILL listening to whining, sniveling apologists explaining why its just soooo hard and boo hoo and poor Democrats just have their hands tied and can't get anything done right.

Kinda makes you wonder how long we'll keep supporting the same people over and over and again when they never do what we actually want? I mean, if they're not going to do it anyway, because its ALWAYS too hard, why the fuck should I bother voting for them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #54

57. I've made my point and I don't have to reiterate.

If you're not seeing how fucked up Dems are in Congress then there's nothing more to say. Enjoy Bayh, enjoy Landrieu, enjoy Baucus, enjoy Daschle....their really on board and loving a public option because they want to pass something for the people. It's amazing how glowing their support is.

Live the lie and enjoy it. They also are the ones who pass the laws---but since we got the Dems it's okay. These Dems are as fucked up if not more so than Repubs and they want to see Obama fail just as much. But believe what you want.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Political Heretic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jun-20-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #57

71. You're only making my point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

quantass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #6

21. Me thinks Special Interests were not as heavy $$ contribs in the past

as they are now.

But i agree with you though....i recall TYT's Cenk saying that Obama needs to be foreful and start threatening them in a way that could hurt them down the road politically...kind of like Bush did to pass legislature.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

spiritual_gunfighter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #21

59. I was thinking about what Cenk said too about this

If Obama doesn't have the votes on the Dem side call Landrieu and say "hey do you want my support in 2012, do you want DNC support? Then change your vote". It appears as if Obama doesn't want to do it that way. Which is disappointing, healthcare is far too important.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #1

11. Yep. There is that funny thing called "having enough votes"

Some people seem to forget that it's not a football game, a video game, a remote-switching act... it's about getting enough votes to actually pass legislation.

Sure, we could all just scream bloody murder than Obama sign single-payer health care legislation into law in ten minutes. But we don't live in a monarchy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #11

13. No we don't and that won't even leave the house floor. -_- n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

spiritual_gunfighter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #13

60. Just another excuse

If not now when??? Obama has Congress he has the numbers, are you trying to tell me that the masterful politician that Obama is cant get the votes he needs? Call Landrieu in and ask her "Do you want my support in 2012? Do you want the DNC's support?" Then vote for this bill. It's called politics and Obama needs to start spending some of his capital on this issue, it is far too important not to get this done now. If not this year, it's not going to happen at all. George Bush won the 04 election with 51 percent of the vote and he was saying he has political capital to spend. Obama wins in a landslide and now we are hearing Obama apologists and Dems saying "we just dont have the votes". Pathetic really, if Obama cant get anything done because "his hands are tied" then let someone else do the job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #11

14. Congress is putting health industry profits first. Obama must lead.

We need a real public option that will help drive down the cost of health insurance. Conrad's co-ops aren't it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #14

18. Uh there are several different versions of this public option on the table.

Why are you pointing out Conrad's alone? Further more WhiteHouse is currently working on one...you do realize that right? He sad so on The Ed Show. So I'm trying to see your point. I don't know how much else you want Obama to lead---actually why don't you come right out and say you want Obama to write the bill? It makes this entire circular discussion easier.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bvar22

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #1

41. Obama and Rahm "twisted arms" ....

...to get Democratic support for their $100Billion War supplemental.
"Liberal" Democrats who opposed more War Spending were called into a private White House conference and told if they didn't vote FOR more War Money, then they would be locked out of the White House, and their conservative challengers in the Primaries would be supported by the White House. "We will come to your districts and campaign against you!".

I would LOVE to see this administration care about EFCA and HealthCare as much as they care for The WARS.

BTW: If you are so "tired of listening to this", why do you immediately jump into threads where we are discussing real reform? There are plenty of other threads where you don't have to listen to all this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

girl gone mad

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #41

61. He twisted arms to get TARP I & II passed, too.

Clearly, he knows how to sway congress when he wants to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bvar22

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #61

68. The priorities are clear.

Trillions for Wall Street Bankers = MOST Important

Billions for MORE WAR = MOST Important

Increasing Military Spending = MOST Important

EFCA (Organized LABOR) = NOT Important

Equal Rights for ALL = NOT Important

Prosecuting WAR Criminals/Torturers = NOT Important

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AlinPA

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #1

67. He can tell them to drop dead when they want him to campaign for them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

izquierdista

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 07:45 AM
Response to Original message

2. Mitch hit it on the head

We've got a ruined economy with Americans needing to ask insurance company permission to visit their doctors. I wonder where he got his great forecasting abilities?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pnorman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:09 AM
Response to Original message

7. I recall some of Gene Lyon's articles during the primaries.

It wasn't so much that he was passionately pro-Hillary. It was that his ANTI-Obama tirades was sometimes beyond belief! I'll continue to handle him with considerable scepticism.

As for Obama's bi-partisan approach, something that arouses deep SCORN from a few here: Yes, the few Republicans that it attracts are quickly brought back in line by their party bosses. But it resonates very well with the fastest growing political tendency in the country --- the "independents"!

pnorman

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #7

16. I suppose that's why Obama's job approval with independents is down from April's 60% to 46%

Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 08:49 AM by flpoljunkie

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TacticalPeek

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #16

22. At some point the independents pay more attention to what you do than to what you say.

Obama's window is starting to close imo. A most powerful consortium of interest groups is working 24/7 to make sure it closes without changing the health rip-off system.

Lyons is right. FUCK THE REPUBLICANS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

QC

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #22

39. You mean, for them it's not enough for the president to look nice in a bathing suit?

Heavens to betsy!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pnorman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #16

43. Is there a reliable source for those figures?

Even if they're correct, those "independents" were largely ex-Republican voters, and are still a worthwhile target.

pnorman

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #43

58. No. Because gallup has Obama with an overall 61% job approval rating.

CBS has him at 63%. Meaning he's keeping the independents quite happy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8480966

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18poll.html?_r=2&hp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8481194&mesg_id=8481194

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sisters6

(351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 09:52 AM
Response to Original message

25. The public option is losing steam. It is time for Pres. Obama

to put some heft into his talk. He needs to lead on this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #25

29. The media is helping. CNN headline: Is Health Care Reform Already on Life Support?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kenny blankenship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #25

36. Leadership is precisely the point. Where's the Big Speech?

Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 11:43 AM by kenny blankenship

When does he shame Congress into doing the right thing, with provision of a strong public option - like expansion of Medicare?

When does he call out the insurance sector lobby for corrupting Congress? When does he rally the PEOPLE?!? The people are OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of a competitive public option, but that's the one thing they WON'T get at the rate this debacle is going.

It looks like Obama is not a leader. He's a follower, and whatever crap legislation Congress passes to pay off the Insurance camp will get that camp-follower's signature.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MarjorieG

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #36

37. Notice media doesn't show his speeches anymore? An agenda?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vaberella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #36

40. Uh he's made several.

I've seen way too many disingenuous posts in regards to this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/obama-ama-speech-full-tex_n_215699.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5081425.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvFqTVal_f0

And he's going to do more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Better Believe It

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #40

42. Instead of directing Rahm Emanual to fight anti-war Democrats, President Obama should .....

put Emanual to work using his famous "sharp elbows" against "centrist" Democrats who either want to abandon a strong public option in favor of co-ops or who favor taxing workers health benefits while mandating uninsured people to buy private insurance!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bluenorthwest

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #42

47. No kidding, they are willing to strong arm for more war

but not for decent health care reform.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Fate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #42

51. You are asking a Rahm to fight people that he probably agrees with.

DLCers only know how to fight some "far left wacko" strawman that they dreamed up one day- they wouldn't even know where to start when it comes to butting heads with their fellow conservatives.

I agree with everything you said, but that is my take.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Clio the Leo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #40

64. Dont you love how THIS thread has more replies in it than....

Edited on Fri Jun-19-09 07:39 AM by Clio the Leo

.... the one where we discussed his ACTUAL speech....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8471972

Replies #12 and #27 are real eye catchers!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

democracy1st

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #25

44. seriously no fight in these dems

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

flpoljunkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #44

46. Did you read Teaser's post. Hope springs eternal!

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) stressed the need for a public health option in healthcare reform during a meeting with reporters, claiming �It's the one certain way to drive down costs.� Dodd, who is chairing the committee in absence of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), said he would do whatever it takes to get a public option included in the 615-page bill the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is currently negotiating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8481794

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

democracy1st

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #46

48. thanks for the info

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Political Heretic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-18-09 06:35 PM
Response to Original message

52. As long as Obama keeps trying everyone happy, ordinary Americans will keep being screwed

by forces with more bullying power than they have.

I'm insulted by this idea that we have to bring everyone to the table, implying that the immensely powerful corporate lobby with Billions of dollars and the financial elite with five hundred times the wealth of the average for everyone else in the world - who also happen to be exploiting and oppressing labor and the working class - need to have an equal voice and input into policy.

For one thing, ITS NOT EQUAL. We don't have an equality of power and influence with mulit-billion dollar corporations whose lobbysts have Congress persons on speed dial. For another thing, FUCK THEM. They are not part of the solution. The ARE the problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Droogie666

(73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #52

62. Just Because Democrats

Have the majority in the House and in the Senate, does not automatically not mean Barack Obama has enough votes. He can't even do the 50-vote strategy because the blue-dog "democrats" can't be trusted. There are more than 15 blue-dog "democrats" in the Senate. They would side with the republicans and kill a good healthcare bill. They have done it before. Whether it's a single-payer plan, or a public plan. That could be one of the reasons he is being bi-partisan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

olegramps

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #62

65. Damn disappointing when so-called Democrats will not protect the interest of the working class.

The Democratic Party of FDR's party was united in defense of the working class against Republicans owners who were deter minded to enslave the workers.

I worked for and voted for Obama because I have always supported the Democratic Party as being the party that represented the working class. It is apparent that too many so-called Democrats that we have elected do not respect the basic principle that their primary duty to their constituency is to protect the working class.

It is unfortunate that working class folks, including far too many Democrats swallowed the Republican propaganda that unions were evil and that management would take good care of them. They took care of them all right. They outsourced their jobs, cut their pensions and canceled their health insurance.

Basically the workers don't have any effective representation in congress. The one organization, unions, that could have influenced their representatives to protect their interest was abandoned. As a consequence, most Democratic representatives have become little different than the Republicans and are little more than mouth pieces for powerful corporations.

The workers can only blame themselves for their sad predicament.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AlinPA

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-19-09 07:49 AM
Response to Original message

66. Seem that this is what Bill Maher is talking about:"The president has told visitors that he would

rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52 to 48."

There is no such thing as "bipartisanship".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:02 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC