Obama Won Tonight
It was a great speech, the most effective and moving speech Obama has given.as President.
Will it do the job? Will it produce a bill?
Yes, it will. But not because he won over the Republicans. The ridiculous Eric Cantor was typical of his GOP colleagues. He sat up there, right in front of the President of the United States, tweeting on his Blackberry. He at least looked like a living adolescent. Most of his colleagues looked like the jury at the Salem witch trials, with an occasional madman screaming epithets at the President whose very countenance offends so many rightwingers.
But this speech worked because it will galvanize Democratic support. The President's passion -- the first time we've seen it in a year -- will bring straying Democrats back. And the Republicans now know that there will be a bill with them or without them. The implied threat of going the reconciliation route was just below the surface.
That is why the Republicans looked so miserable. They either work with Obama to produce a bill or Democrats pass a bill without them.
Am I sure about all this? No, not completely. The haters and racists who fought against a Presidential speech to school kids are still out there. I hope, but do not know if their force is spent. However, without the phony town meetings and the media hype surrounding them, they will very likely be relegated to the dank and stinking spot in the national cellar where the racists and nativists have always dwelled.
We'll see. My prediction is that Obama turned it around tonight. At last, he channeled FDR, JFK, LBJ and Clinton. He can do this. And we have to figure out the best way to help.
That was not only Obama's best speech of all times, but possibly the best presidential address to Congress of all times. And, as cynical as I have become about Obama, he sold me on his plan. I support it wholeheartedly now. Tomorrow I plan to phone both of my senators demanding they support that plan, without any amendments.
I really like the way he gave the finger to the Republicans, so obviously, and called out the insurance companies as the source of most of the health care problems. He needed to identify the villains and did so very convincingly. The idiot the GOP sent out to counter Obama's speech was juvenile, ludicrous, and a disgrace to Congress.
And speaking about disgraces to Congress, the South Carolinia idiot who disrespected the President before the whole Congress, and the nation, should be censored and stripped of any committee assignments. If this had happened to Bush by a Democrat, the person doing it would face far worse punishment, most likely including jail time.
September 9, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if the President can convince you, I'm sure all the populace will be convinced. :)
September 9, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the fundamental equation has not changed. It's really just a question if we can get the liberal left, Blue Dogs and the ladies from Maine to get in the same boat.
It was a great speech, but the rules governing filibusters have not changed, the Southern and Western Democrats and independents have not changed their opinion that the government is spending too much and thus the positions of their elected leaders will not change.
The President, fight as hard as he may cannot change the reality of the way our Constitution is set up and the way people in less liberal parts of the land feel.
September 9, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the face of vociferous disinformation from the right wing noise machine the support of the country for the public option as remained remarkably firm. There is more support than one would guess for the public option in many less liberal parts of the land. In fact, many of the Blue Dogs are proposing to vote against the wishes of their constituents. See Fivethirtyeight.com.
September 9, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet, you cannot make that case for the Senate, which is the more obstinate of the two houses. It needs to be borne in mind that the cut-off line here is 60 votes. Let's say you have 62 votes to work with (the Democratic caucus plus the Republican Senators from Maine).
We have to subtract two votes from that from Arkansas because 60% of the people of Arkansas oppose the public option and both senators are Democrats.
Now you have no room for error. NONE. If there are any other states where the plurality oppose the public option, or you just have a senator who's a disagreeable asshole (i.e. Lieberman), then you're out of luck. You see how unlikely this is to work?
September 9, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have a look at this as well: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/26/772667/-Nebraska-is-tough-sell-for-public-option
Nebraskans oppose the public option. Now you're down to 59 votes and there hasn't even been a poll on the subject in Louisiana (Mary Landrieu (D)).
Given that only 45 Senators support the public option, how many more of these problem states/senators are still out there?
At this point in history (where our economy is trashed) and the Senate rules allows a filibuster, it's nice to glow about a great speech and nobility of a public option. Yet the fundamental obstacles still remain.
I suspect there are few people on this blog from Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc, and if there were, they should go and demand their senator vote for the public option. It is precisely the point though that the people of those states do not support the public option and thus it cannot happen this year.
September 9, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Senate voted the way the majority of the people want we'd get public option. Haven't checked yet but think that the support for public option is geographically widespread enough that if each Senator followed the opinion in their state that we'd get public option. That is, some Republican Senators are currently voting against their state.
Also a lot of the opposition to public option and the bill generally is based on flat out lies. So it should be relatively easy for a Senator follow his conscience and vote for the bill and turn around and educate his constituents.
September 10, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta keep something in mind. If the Senate was a TRULY democratic institution that was elected on a national basis, like the President, then we probably would have not had a Republican Senate during the Bush years. The American public consistently favors Democrats in the Congress, but that's not how our Constitution works.
The founders made a compromise between democracy and unity. Democracy was sacrificed so that unity could be achieved. Remember your civics class, where Rhode Island gets as much power in the Senate as New York. Nowadays that dynamic hurts Democrats. Where are the red states? Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia. Where are the blue states? California, New York, Massachussetts, Illinois - massive urban states. The Constitution is set up in a way that happens to put the urban liberal base at a disadvantage.
Those are the rules of the game. Therefore, we should play this game understanding that the people of Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska and North Dakota (where lots of people who oppose the public option live) are going to have disproportionate influence in the Senate. That's the Constitution. Be prepared for a compromise therefore and don't blame Obama and other Democrats who want reform because of how the Constitution set up the Senate. That's what I'm arguing for.
September 10, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama Won Tonight"
- Maybe, but what was he fighting for?
He obviously won't push for the public option. Coops were explictly called "a good idea". He clearly wants a bipartisan bill (that pandering to McCain was pretty amazing).
I'd say things stand in exactly the same place they were at 8:00 pm but perhaps there's more going on behind the scenes.
September 9, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just heard the POTUS say Republicans as a group are a bunch of bald-faced LIARS...
September 9, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I never knew such a place existed! Is it part of the National Park System?
September 9, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
=D
Gasket. Too funnee. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Me, I heard a lot of BS. I heard nothing that will help those that need it the most.
He gives them McCain's plan, which I'm pretty sure they don't want or they would have VOTED FOR HIM.
=(
Sorry to be a cynic, but I just don't see much hope.
September 9, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, from the left side of the Democratic party... yeah I was impressed as always by Obama the speech maker. But the reality is, if he gets exactly what he outlined with no compromises, the day after this bill becomes law, my life doesn't change. My employer still picks my health insurer, it's still a big private company that charges too much and does too little for the premiums and that's that.
So yay, we beat the Republicans and that's important but I'm not personally very excited about it. The big thing I learned tonight is that we'll put ourselves on the line for hundreds of billions in potential balance sheet losses from Wall Street banks and never mention the deficit but that this has to be deficit neutral. Nice.
September 9, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ is such a romantic when it comes to Obama. It's like when the O-man was kissing AIPAC's ring. He won! What did he win? Details are lacking. More business for the health-scam corporations is what he won, if anything.
What do they care about s speech, if they are getting so much more federally-subsidized business???
September 10, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are right, MJ, but my reaction to the speech could not be more different. I went in with high hopes. However, the President's "passion" struck me as stagecraft.
President Obama did not sound at all like a man committed to a cause. The President sounded to me like a politician maneuvering to pass a dubious bill and declare victory. Where Obama once appeared to hold core principles, there are only things that you can absolutely count on Obama to concede. After conceding all the essential points at the opening of debate, Obama stands up--as tonight--to fight for what? The chance to sign into law something that he can claim as a legislative victory, however worthless or harmful.
Unlike Bush, Obama at least appears to be competent. Unlike Bush, Obama certainly is intelligent. It even remains possible that Obama has some measure of integrity. But there is a substantial challenge in maintaining Obama's full catalog of virtues while accounting for things like Obama's instant, secret sell-out to healthcare interests. An incompetent man might sell out in that way, or a corrupt man, or a man who has no sense of right and wrong, or a man too weak in the knees to fight for what he knows is right. A strong, competent leader committed to principle would not sell out so quickly or thoroughly. Obama did sell out.
Obama's speech tonight did not realistically address the crisis in healthcare--not the unsustainable costs and not the gross inequities. Yes, he called the Republicans liars for all the lies they've been telling about the content of his "reforms." That's a step in the right direction. On the other hand, Obama's pledge to restrict access to the public option to those who have no other insurance rips the heart out of healthcare reform. Obama attacked progressives for attributing too much importance to the public option, but by denying most of us access to the public option, Obama makes us captives of healthcare monopolies. The point of the public option is to break the monopolies. Being forced to buy from your local healthcare monopoly is not reform. It is not worth fighting for. It is not worth supporting a president and a party for. No matter what Obama thinks, monopolies will continue doing exactly as they please, denying coverage as necessary to meet profit goals. They'll buy off regulators just as they buy off legislators and, yes, presidents.
Some truly unpleasant alternatives are better than this "reform." Better a great calamity in healthcare and a bankrupt nation followed by real reform that living forever at the edge of calamity and bankruptcy, with each generation worse off than its parents. That's where we're headed with Obama's "reform."
Of course, with the Republicans, we can have total calamity for 90% of the population in perpetuity. Next to that, Obama looks good. He looks about the same as Ross and Baucus, as a matter of fact.
No, tonight's speech was not a meaningful turnaround in the healthcare debate. Tonight's speech was all politics, no principle. Obama may get his legislative "victory." Democrats will get all future credit for this walking-pneumonia of a healthcare system. Republicans will be able to claim things would have been swell if only the Democrats hadn't intervened in our glorious free market by allowing a public option--even though that public "option" is forbidden to most of us by Obama's plan.
Democrats of conscience should try to pass real reform. It is better to have Republicans and Blue Dogs vote down the basis for a clearly defined, equitable healthcare system than for all Democrats to go along with dressing America's healthcare catastrophe in new Democratic-branded clothing. Why should Democrats rush to take ownership of catastrophe for generations to come, when Democrats are just tinkering with catastrophe around the edges? The more Democrats claim credit for this "reform," the worse off they will be in future elections as voters face ruinous healthcare costs and despise the monopolies who ration care to fund the bonuses of care-denial executives--the same sorts of people who met secretly with President Obama to negotiate these wonderful "reforms." We all hate these people now. All these reforms do is give us reason to hate the party and the president who brag about having reformed this system while preserving most of the aspects that infuriate us now.
The Obama Administration and the current Democratic Congress make a powerful case for starting over, founding a new party, based on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Success is unlikely, but a chance of success in a good cause holds more appeal than an assured contribution to the nation's moral and economic decline. If our political system devotes all its energy to ignoring fundamental problems and debating which of two parties is more corrupt and more to blame for our national decline, we have no future. Obama seemed to understand that. That was his biggest campaign theme. But now he seems to have more important things to do than truly come to grips with our nation's problems.
Obama has left the reality-based community. He's off in political fantasy-land, where it's possible for him and him alone to have bipartisanship with those bent on his destruction, and to have it without ever securing a single vote from his bipartisan collaborators. It's also magically possible to solve major problems without making any changes that might upset vested interests or opposition parties.
Most fantastic of all in this fantasy land: Obama, Axelrod, et al are free to ignore or insult the people who voted for them, worked for them, and made campaign contributions from their personal pockets. In the land of Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, and Plouffe, progressive supporters of a candidate who espoused progressive causes during his campaign have only two functions: to respond to spamming for further contributions, and to keep their mouths shut as progressive principles are pissed away.
It takes more than optimism to see the bright side at this point. It takes delusion. It's time for Democrats to march with anti-Obama placards. We didn't elect Obama for the pleasure of his oratory. We expected him at least to try to do some things. What he has done is construct an impenetrable bubble around the White House to shut out all views that deviate from orthodoxy according to Axelrod/Emaneul/Plouffe etc. None of them seems to care about anything except political calculations, and they are calculating wrong. They have turned admiration and enthusiasm into astonished contempt in a matter of months and they don't have a clue. Of the lot of them, Obama personally seems the most out of touch. He won't realize what's happening until protesting Democrats outnumber protesting birthers at every Obama event. That day is coming.
September 10, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"but by denying most of us access to the public option, Obama makes us captives of healthcare monopolies. The point of the public option is to break the monopolies. Being forced to buy from your local healthcare monopoly is not reform."
Yes...a big missing piece of this. Opening this up to more people, especially when the price differential becomes clear, is step two.
Keep in mind that Obama ALWAYS campaigned as a centrist, as a bipartisan guy...all the way back to his 2004 convention speech.
To be surprised or disappointed by this now is to admit that you haven't been paying attention, or you've been telling yourself fairy tales. If you contributed to, or worked for, Obama thinking he was DK or Feingold, then you deluded yourself.
And until the progressive wing can put forth an agenda and candidates who appeal to more than a segment of the American people, they will always be out of power.
Unless, maybe, the whole thing collapses. But then we're just as likely to get a right wing demagogue.
September 10, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, Tintin.
I guess I thought there were two ways to be a centrist. One is to move toward the positions of your opponent, no matter how misbegotten. That seems to be Obama's approach. The other way is to redefine the center around good policies, and convince the public that their interests lie in those policies, and inspire the public to move the opposition toward a sane center. This second way amounts to building a coalition around good policies. That is what I thought Obama was capable of, and what I thought he would do. Obama hasn't even tried. Obama's way of being a centrist strikes me as building a coalition by abandoning good policies and pandering to an irrational opposition. I think Obama's way not only gives Democrats full blame for half-assed policies, but also is more likely to leave right-wing demagogues in strong positions.
Time will tell.
September 10, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think my speech was good, Oh yea, just wait till you see my Czar's work behind the scene.
September 10, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
GOPers, all by themselves and with no encouragement from Democrats, have poisoned the political discourse so badly and for so long that it is time to say “enough is enough.” Rep. Joe Wilson wasn’t the only one shouting down the President of the United States during an address to a Joint Session of Congress. There were at least two other shout-outs that didn’t get as much attention.
Politics is politics, and thin skins don’t last long. But, boorish behavior should never be tolerated, particularly where deeply held principles are involved.
If the GOPers don’t want to play the time-tested and honorable role of a loyal opposition, they need to get out of the way. If they won’t negotiate in good faith on bipartisan solutions to major issues facing this country – such as the stimulus package, and now healthcare reform – then they should not be surprised when they are left out of adult conversations.
Enough is enough. Democrats were elected, by a landslide, to reverse the course of the last eight years. It is time to get on with the job.
September 10, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks you for sharing. This information is very useful.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, iscsi initiator vista
March 25, 2011 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
These kind of post are always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content so I happy to find many good point here in the post, writing is simply great, thank you for the post
Chronic Fatigue Solutions
April 10, 2011 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making such a cool project. I've been checking the site for the Windows version, but I never left a comment about it. I know you are working hard and doing it for free so you shouldn't feel rushed or anything.
Happy Birthday Wishes
April 15, 2011 11:38 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 windows high availability
April 27, 2011 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!
Natural Puppy Food
May 4, 2011 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink