Obama Should Say: To Hell With A Second Term, I'm Just Doing This
Senator Schumer is now saying that on health care we may need to go the reconciliation route and pass a strong health care bill without the Republicans. Bravo. Why not? Health care reform is popular with the public. We can't allow it to be brought down by lies and the visceral hatred of Obama on the part of a loudmouth segment of the GOP -- a segment motivated not by the issue at all but, in my opinion, their horror at having this particular President sitting in "their" White House.
Then, of course, there are the bluedogs and Senate "moderates" whose motto should be. "All the money you want for war but not one dime of tax revenues for the health of the American people. Iraq was great. When can we hit Iran?"
Our model should be George W. Bush who, with no mandate whatsoever (to put it mildly), put through his program. Bipartisanship? Hell no. He just did whatever he wanted and relied on his base to have his back. As inept as he was, or seemed, Republicans in Congress were terrified of him (not to mention Cheney and Rove) and knew that defying the White House would ruin them. (A GOP equivalent of Evan Bayh would....well, no point, imagining. There would have been no such thing).
Obama may have to play that game.
If the opposition (the GOP and their fellow travelers) continue to block a good bill, Obama should tell the American people. "I did not run for President to win a second term. I ran to make government work for you. I said I will enact health care reform with a solid public component and that is what we are going to do. I'd prefer Republicans to join me in this effort but, if not, so be it. We're doing it.
"I would rather serve one term as President and make lives genuinely better for all Americans than spend my time here worrying about polls. I'd rather have one good term that transforms America than two that are about politics and staying on the safe side of issues.
He should then say what his bottom line is and that he'll accept nothing less. And then just fight for the 51% that brings a bill to his desk.
Forget politics and just get us a program that works.
Remember, LBJ had just two years to enact his program before the GOP came roaring back in 1966. He did it. Our next opportunity (a Democratic President with a mandate) came 44 years later. This it it. It's now or never. The idea that we would fritter it away in pursuit of Blue Dogs, Baucus or Bayh is nauseating.
51% is all we need and we have it. To hell with the right. Stand up for Americans.
PS Even though I think it's worth even sacrificing a second term to tell the Republicans, Blue Dogs and Senate DINO's to shove their do-nothing centrism where the moon don't shine and win health care without them, I also think doing it would win Obama a landslide. Americans wisely hate politicians and Obama should exploit that.
- Our model should be George W. Bush
- "I would rather serve one term as President"
Well I think you already have the first as far as national security, bailouts, TurboTax Tim with his Wall Street pals, and things like that. But I think the second one is a truly marvellous idea! Yes we can!
P.S. MJ - you're truly incomparable, without equal. I missed you. Honestly.
August 3, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure hero-Hillary would've had Health Care passed by now, because she had such an easy time of it in '94.
August 4, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, says: "Obama may have to do the same thing."
Absolutely. Otherwise, what is the point of the 60 votes in the Senate?
August 3, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been wondering all along what was the reason for all the hue and cry about 60 votes. I mean, it was obvious after 2006 that a "supermajority" would not be any use. The Democratic leadership was so subservient to Bush that they always gave him more than he dared ask for (see FISA "reform" bill). It was also obvious that the Blue Dogs were going to be just as obstructive as the Repugs. So they really needed at least 74 votes in the Senate. Then there was the fact that "leading" the Democrats is like herding cats anyway (Will Rogers, "I'm not a member of any organized political group. I'm a Democrat.") So they really needed at least 84 votes. Heck, while you're at it why not just round it off to a nice even 90? Then we might get something done.
August 4, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it would not be possible to pass a strong healthcare bill using the reconciliation mechanism. Under the Byrd rules, reconciliation can only be used for provisions that are primarily budgetary in nature and which are either revenue neutral or intended to reduce the deficit. A healthcare bill could be fashioned to comply with these rules, but it would lack many of the most critical elements of healthcare reform. As a consequence, it appears that 60 votes will be needed for an adequate reform measure.
In theory, budgetary provisions could be passed by reconciliation, and non-budgetary measures passed in a separate bill if 60 votes are available. Even then, however, the result would be nothing like what is actually needed.
It seems to me that the threat of reconciliation is intended primarily to light a fire under the Senate Finance Committee and its Democratic members who are dragging their feet to draft a bill. It may succeed in prodding the Committee to produce something, but in and of itself, it is not a means of achieving what is needed to reform healthcare.
August 3, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we get a constitutional lawyer's opinion on this?
August 3, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution has nothing to say about this. It's a matter of Senate rules. Applying them involves judgments by the Senate parliamentarian.
August 3, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then can we get a Senate parliamentarian's opinion on this.
August 3, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure you didn't get one?
August 4, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan Zasloff over at samefacts.com (The Reality Based Community) claims that the President of the Senate makes the final ruling on the parlementarian's rulings. So if that is the case then it is all up to Joe.
So here it is. It is time for the Democrats and the Obama administration to put up or fold up their tent and quit. Are they finally going to decide to play hardball and fulfill all the promises? Or is it going to be make nice and throw it all away? This is the moment when we find out if America will stand fall into a pile of rubble to be picked over by the vultures.
August 4, 2009 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee (Schumer) said today that healthcare would be passed and the reconciliation process would be used if needed. So you disagree with him?
August 4, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that a reform package will be passed. Reconciliation would be more useful as a threat than a reality, because it would fail to permit passage of the most essential elements of reform involving the insurance industry.
August 4, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - you keep forgetting.
These are modern-day DEMOCRATS.
They could find a way to fail using using gasoline and a match to set a fire.
August 3, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to join the Green Party?
August 3, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Green Party has little clue about how to achieve anything. A real Green Party might be a good idea, but it would have to be run by a new crowd not the group that has been hell-bent on keeping the Green Party defacto the Feel-Good Rainbow Failure Party. They have never aspired to anything beyond than blissful obscurity.
August 4, 2009 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another way to look at it: "I'm doing this, AND I'm going to win a second term handily as a result."
The best piece along these lines was Michael Moore's piece from HuffPo where he made the point -- convincingly -- that American agrees with him on issues. (Even though he's been radicalized...)
August 3, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't I just see that the US lost more troops in Afghanistan in the last month than any month since the war began?
Obama better do the LBJ thing on healthcare quick. Not a great idea to base your legacy on land wars in Asia.
August 3, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the nail on the head. Get out of both wars. These are not our struggles. We cannot shape nations in the Middle East and Asia. How arrogant.
We need to lead the world in peaceful solutions and be a model democracy ourselves, with fair elections and a government of laws. Without walking the walk no one will listen to our talk. (see the previous 8 years)
August 4, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since Congress is a very corrupt organization, available to the highest bidder, it isn't realistic to expect that body to pass any bill that harms their highest bidder. What the public sees as out of control health care costs, with a big shortfall in results, that highest bidder sees as a golden economic opportunity to corner a larger share of the nation's wealth. And, Congress has learned that you just don't interfere with the efforts of the wealthy to become ever more wealthy. Unless we can somehow change those facts, any true health care system improvement will be impossible.
Incidentally, Obama is a politician, so if the public hates politicians, Obama is doomed anyway.
August 4, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great take, MJ. Reconciliation could be used. The letter of the Byrd rules require an issue related to reducing deficits, but this could be tweaked to fulfill that. It's cheating a bit but nothing compared to the Senate's usual everyday cheating and misleading (see: pork). Most rules and regulations are manipulated against their original intended interests; witness the stretching of constitutional authority this last decade.
Bush used reconciliation to force many non- budgetary issues and no one complained about its misuse then. Nothing changes if chances aren't taken and this perpetual campaigning thrown to the side (well Bush did it, but with lies and 'political fraud').
I can't say I have a lot of hope, but if Obama and the Dems were to go there, I think it would open up the restricted DC debate, increase their courage and empower them to make strong reforms all around (like campaign and lobbyist reforms) and even tape the constitution back together by investigating the Bush era executive and congress, and prosecuting past abuses that will become precedent if allowed to stand.
Who knows, FDR made some pretty drastic reforms and was elected again (and again and again).
August 3, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don - In another thread, I believe it was you who quoted from an Ezra Klein piece on reconciliation, although it may have been someone else. It would not be up to the Democrats to decide whether a provision complied with reconciliation, but to the Senate parliamentarian. Bush got some bills passed that way but was stopped on others. In addition, reconciliation does not apply to a whole bill but to each provision. Opponents can challenge every provision they claim is not primarily budgetary in nature, and the parliamentarian will then determine whether or not to strike that provision from the bill.
There is no question that something could pass via reconciliation, particularly if it was a cost cutting measure. I have seen nothing suggesting that the major reform provisions could do that, and even Senators considering reconciliation state that a separate bill (requiring 60 votes) would be needed.
August 3, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Klein article says that it comes down to the parliamentarian. It also says the GOP had two successive parliamentarians whacked because they defined Byrd strictly (I don't mean "whacked" whacked, of course, but fired).
Besides, I would think that a public option separated out could pass muster as a budget issue (particularly if tied to Medicaid reductions or elimination). I don't know if reconciliation is probable, but I think if Schumer is pushing it now, as Obama has floated it before, it must be possible.
August 3, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so! Republicans have been shamelessly twisting the rules to suite their purposes. They have already made this SOP.
And if Joe Biden indeed has the authority to over rule the parlimentarian it is time for Joe to prove he can do more than give long winded speeches and stick his foot in his mouth. As a Delaware resident I've been voting for Joe all these years and he has let me down more times thatn I care to think about. It's payday Joe! Put this ball over the line and all is forgiven!
August 4, 2009 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
During the Bush era, reconciliation was used to pass some bills without a filibuster, but the parliamentarian blocked the Administration in other cases, much to the Administration's displeasure, despite the fact that the Senate President then was Dick Cheney. If you can quote a Senate rule or precedent documenting the ability of the Senate President to overrule a parliamentarian's decision, it would be worth citing here in its entirety.
August 4, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama chose August to push hard against the Pharmaceutical companies. Just more evidence that he wants to look good failing.
August 3, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's argument is simple: "I campaigned on this, I was elected to do it, I'm doing it." I don't think he should even give a nod to "it's unpopular" or "I might not get re-elected because of it."
Health care reform isn't unpopular. Public sentiment around it is admittedly complicated and hard to divine but people aren't taking to the streets to try to stop this thing. This isn't the Iraq war and since Obama did campaign on it and won the election decisively, he has nothing to apologize for.
I kind of think it's a mistake to even imply that Obama is in opposition to public opinion on this. Why even go there?
August 4, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree 100% destor.
August 4, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, MJ, if you wanted the kind of President who would ram through his program along partisan lines and damn the consequences, maybe you shouldn't have supported Obama. That's not the kind of campaign he ran and that's not the President he promised to be. As he sits back and let's the cronies hash out a series of half-baked healthcare compromises according to a vague set of parameters, hearken back to the campaign, when proven progressives like Paul Krugman were regularly savaged here at the "Cafe" for suggesting that what we needed was someone (Hillary Clinton) who would do just what you're asking here: play hardball in pursuit of a clearly defined liberal agenda. Instead, we were supposed to move past partisanship.
Obama ran a great campaign - I supported him and continued to do so. I am hopeful that he'll get a good deal of what he wants in the final bill. But what we're seeing is the governing style the President promised. Maybe you weren't paying attention.
August 4, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it's a governing style that is ineffective and uninspiring. He needs to get a clue and change it.
August 4, 2009 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary "play hardball", like the way she effectively opposed Cheney-Bush's insane Iraq policy in 2002-03? Your "support" for Obama is not what he needs. He, and most other Democrats more than he, need swift deft posterior propulsion ala what MJ has neatly expressed here. You are correct to observe that Obama's general inclination is to compromise, and have everyone happy together over a beer, but MJ is right that he can change and will change (not overall but where necessary to get the job done) if his supporters ("supporters" welcome too) insist on it. You don't win at basketball by compromising with the opposite team.
August 4, 2009 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is not that Obama should or shouldn't play hardball. Rather, I was pointing out the hypocracy of so many who lauded his centrist, post-partisan, consensus-building approach and are now exhorting him to become someone else. Either those people (MJ included) (1) weren't listening, preferring to hear what they wanted to hear, or (2) cynically believed that his rhetoric was just that: rhetoric, rather than sincerely held belief. Obama is acting just the way he promised. And if you think he's going to change his entire approach to governing because of some fulminating on the left, you are likely to be disappointed. Obama has proven numerous times before that he's willing to disappoint his base in the interest of incrimentalism.
As for myself, I've always been a bit frustrated by this approach, preferring a democrat who would more closely emulate the GW Bush/Republican style of governance. But given the diversity of opinion among the Democrats themselves, it's not clear to me that even the most extreme hardball tactics would achieve what MJ suggests. So, I'm just hoping Obama can exert enough influence to ensure that whatever comes out of the Senate contains enough good to constitute a real improvement.
August 4, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I was pointing out the hypocracy of so many who lauded his centrist, post-partisan, consensus-building approach and are now exhorting him to become someone else"
No one was lauding him for that. We were lauding him for having the life story and the rhetorical skills to overcome the media "filter" and the right wing noise machine in a way Hillary never could have. This idea that Hillary is a "fighter" who "knows how to get things done" was a campaign concoction with no support from her record as a Senator.
And the vast majority of Obama critics (and, in this case, I'm including MJ) just simply ignore the fact that the president doesn't pass legislation. Obama isn't the one saying this must be a bipartisan bill; it's Senate Democrats (notably Max Baucus) and the maintream media.
The people who need to be criticized and demonized are the Blue Dogs and the Jake Tappers and Katie Courics of the world. The BDs are more concerned with health care indistry profits, and the Jakes and Katies would rather talk about Birthers and Teabagging Parties than see poor and working class Americans obtain decent, regular health care for their families.
It's a sick, corrupt system, and, although Obama should not totally immune from criticism, direct your outrage at the people truly sabotaging health care reform.
August 4, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of those blue dogs are not bad at finding bones, but when they make a mess in the house, they need scolding. Lately its been quite stinky in the House and Senate.
August 4, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a sick, corrupt system, and, although Obama should not totally immune from criticism, direct your outrage at the people truly sabotaging health care reform.
That's a given.
My criticism of Obama is decidedly mild. Sure, I'd like to see him kicking ass on Capitol Hill, but, as I tried to point out, that would go against the entire raison d'etre of his campaign.
August 4, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your final point MJ is really the most important and telling one. If Obama doesn't get off his ass and start leading, truly leading and fighting for healthcare reform---not insurance reform mind you but healthcare reform, he won't have a second term. And I agree, if he does finally do what he should have been doing all along and gets a bill passed that actually does what it is advertised to do then his second term is assured.
August 4, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very right-on analysis, MJ. Thanks.
I think it applies even more to most Congressional Democrats who are less tough than Obama and way less (e.g. utterly NOT) articulate and inspirational.
No one here has taken issue with the idea of adopting the Bush-Rove "damn the torpedoes" tactic, but I'd like to pre-emptively rebut any such criticism anyway. One does not have to combine "damn the torpedoes" with "damn what's good for the country as long as we win at the ballot box." It is possible to be careful about getting the policies right (e.g. as GW Bush famously did not) and yet fight hard and cleverly to achieve clear goals (as the Democrats massively failed to do during the two Cheney-Bush terms -however long they continue to remain in denial about their culpability).
The advantage of a smart and flexible president is that he will see the logic of this, and if people on the Democrat side hammer away at it with 1/4 of the dedication and relentlessness that neo-cons and other assorted maniacs in the Rove's coalition have, he will act forcefully on it. The Hypocrite Republicans are failing with such tactics now because they cannot hide from eight years of consequences of their stupid ideas, threadbare trickery, and incompetent implementation, not because they have remained firm and defiant in pushing their programs.
More columns like this one, please.
August 4, 2009 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
President Obama can relax about winning a second term. He has the advantage of incumbency, and the Republicans cannot defeat him unless they find a strong candidate. And they don't have one. Think back to 1996 - how popular was Pres. Clinton that year? Not very. How accomplished was Clinton's first term? Remember Somalia and the health plan disaster and Gingrich? Not very accomplished. So whom did the Republicans put up to appose him in the election? Bob Dole. They didn't have any strong candidates that year, but even at that they chose one of the weaker candidates available. It's not going to be any better for them in 2012.
August 4, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree he may need to get more aggressive, but to say publically that he will push health care and he doesn't care about winning again makes it sound like he is pushing through legislation that will make him unpopular.
That is not the case.
So I don't agree with the suggestion that he should say that he would sacrifice his second term if need be over health care legislation.
FDR enacted Social Security, et al., and was elected three more times.
LBJ sacrificed this second term not by Medicare and the civil rights legislation, but by Vietnam.
August 4, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a sick, corrupt system, and, although Obama should not totally immune from criticism, direct your outrage at the people truly sabotaging health care reform.
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I really don't know what the metaphysics of the reconciliation process is; nor do I care. All I know is that the Republicans under Bush managed to enact multiple polices with far less of a majority/mandate than Obama and the Democrats now have.
Which is all I - or anyone - needs to know so far as the political and legislative processes are concerned.
August 4, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duncan - I think you're overstating the analogy. The Bush Administration ended up failing to get much done, but they did achieve some of their goals in special circumstances. The Iraq invasion was supported because of 9/11 and the WMD misinformation, and not rammed through in face of a determined political oppostion.
Tax cuts? Well, there was some opposition, but Bush prevailed. He told the American public, "Here, take these tax cuts", and the public said, "Must I really? Well, if you insist."
Once terrorism receded as a main American concern and was replaced by economic woes, Bush accomplished little. For example, an early centerpiece of his policies (somewhat analogous to healthcare reform) was privatizing social security. I hope Obama is more successful in his quest than Bush was in that one.
August 4, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama is, was, and will be for one thing and one thing only. President.
We elected a liberal ideologue, sure. Barack is just a little to the left of Trotsky. However, he has a lot more in common with John Kennedy than Lyndon Johnson. He's interested in political success first, and policy in his spare time.
August 4, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Special circumstances" indeed. The entire Bush Administration was quite "special circumstance."
It was just yesterday; we all recall it quite well. No need to get bogged down on that one.
All of your arguments have the remarkable effect of slowing things down and throwing roadblocks in front of things. This is most counterproductive for someone who says that he hopes Obama is successful. You could be coming up with solutions, instead.
So come on, help us out. Stop raising "special circumstances" and technical esoteric arguments. Someone with your expertise should know how to steer health care through. So how does a 60 vote majority do this? Give us the answer.
Because you really do support health care reform, don't you?
August 4, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, iscsi windows 2003 server
March 28, 2011 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability failover
April 27, 2011 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink