Baseball is as American as Apple Pie
Our President plays hardball at age 8:
Our President plays hardball at age 48:
Our President plays hardball at age 48:
The president is going to appear on five Sunday talk shows - five - to press his case for health care, White House officials disclosed. That is a presidential record.
Mr. Obama is going to appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC. And Meet the Press on NBC. And Face the Nation on CBS. In between, he is going to sit down for interviews on CNN and Univision. (Fox News didn't make the cut).
Advertisement
WOOT! There it is!
September 14, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, somewhere, in scattered brief moments, some of the less rabid, still-lucid conservative Republicans have to be catching themselves thinking forbidden thoughts things like "Gee, this President really works at the job." or "He sure seems to be putting in a lot of effort on what he probably thinks is good for the country" ........ and remembering that even if they supported him, no one EVER said, or thought, things like that about GWB!
And if they should give in and actually *listen* for a minute or two ....
September 14, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liz,
I'm afraid not. Without hypocrites there would be no need for the Republican party.
Right now the teabuggery has almost gone to the point of those free-lance Iranian motorcycle squads that club liberal marchers in the face with truncheons.
And who in the GOP leadership is denouncing it?
No one.
September 15, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand Fox's Chris Wallace will be interviewing dancers instead.
September 14, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's even hitting Univision. LMAO! That's got me feeling a bit optimistic for the first time ... well ... since Rham Emmanuel rolled out and encouraged the blue dogs to propose the trigger plan.
September 15, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not those naked belly dancers, surely. The audience will not be able to discern whether or not chris wallace is smirking or leering.
September 15, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great more opportunities for him to tell the progressives to stand at the back of the line behind the corporations, wingnuts, repblicans, blue dogs, and democrats, and be grateful for what you get.
'Change' that includes a mandate and doesn't include a real public option with NO trigger is basically a big FU to the people who elected this democratic president and put a democrat majority in the house and senate. For some reason, money and ?, the teabaggers who are worried about 'death panels' and 'their right to choose' get priority over 'our right to a real choice'. No public option with a mandate=another corporate giveaway.
September 14, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you propose that he gets us a public option how????
The only concrete suggestion I've heard is that he should veto any bill that doesn't contain it. But the person who suggested that didn't answer the two logical questions:
1) what happens next? in face of that veto the Republicans and Blue Dog Dems suddenly say "oh, gee, we better put one in then?" or do they say "you lose, weak President, back to the status quo" and
2) do you truly want to be responsible for the very real pain and suffering that will result - needlessly - if he vetoes a bill outlawing pre-existing condition requirements or canceling ins. for someone who gets sick and all the many other very real reforms that will be in any bill that gets passed?
Please suggest a realistic way to get that public option bill on his desk for signature and then maybe there will be more who agree with you.
September 14, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but I don't think the benefits will outweigh the costs to reform as a whole by getting a few agreements in exchange for huge new profits locked in for the insurance corporations. I don't see us getting to move further in the direction we would like later... so it's just not healthy in my opinion for us to accept mandates and no public option.
September 14, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend the progressive caucus kill the thing before it ever reaches Obama's desk. Make a great big announcement (with a GOP-style chart - but making sense) laying out every penny that the blue dogs and republicans took to screw the bill up, and promise it will be back next session - and every session - until a proper solution is passed. It's not like the damn thing would kick in until 2014 anyhow; just shave 6 months off the start date every time it comes back.
As synch said, mandates and no public option is a nonstarter. The president does need to hear very clearly what we expect. If he doesn't fight for it, he doesn't get his bill (at least that's what I hope the progressives follow through with). In politics, the nice guy gets the shit sandwich.
That said, we aren't at the end game yet. Reid has placed every tool in play - there is no legislative reason they can't deliver. Obama certainly does seem to be heading out to push SOMETHING. And now's the time to do it, the wingnuts peaked (early?) a week or so back. Here's to hoping he's pushing something on the side of the people.
September 15, 2009 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about this scenario: a close advisor to the President visits every so-called Blue Dog Democratic congressperson. They tell them that if they don't support the public option, they will face a primary challenge. They tell them who the challenger will be -- someone credible in the district whom they've talked to and who has agreed to do it. They tell them the President will appear in the district twice in the month before the primary, to campaign with the challenger. Unless, of course, they want to play ball and support a public option. In which case the President will appear twice with them within a month of the general election.
In my opinion, that's how hard-ball party politics is played. That's how you get your people in line. I was hopeful that Obama knew how to play. (Or at least I thought Rahm did.)
-- ARG
September 15, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the Senate is the real obstacle. And some of the "Blue Dog" Senators are not up for re-election next year. But I still think a credible threat could be made against each of these folks.
Let's face it, for people like Senator Landreau, it's the money she gets from the insurance companies that makes her nervous about supporting a public option. So I think Obama needs to make her choice a little tougher -- offer some real negative consequences for not supporting his plan.
-- ARG
September 15, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well it's for sure he can't count on Harry Reid to do any arm twisting. That's also been part of the problem, no leadership in the Senate. BTW, am I the only one that has a hard time telling Reid and Grassley apart?
September 15, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harry Reid is going to deliver what precisely what Obama asks for. It's the trade off for the administration finally killing Yucca.
September 15, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right? Obama is going to Arkansas to campaign for Blanche Lincoln's opponent? Really? That ought to net Blanche a hundred thousand votes. Ditto for most of the states where the Blue Dogs live. Why do you think they're so resistant to this?
September 15, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
rahm has already done this... however, he was threatening the progressive caucus.
[greenwald documented this when the progressives were unhappy with the WH's war funding requests and were threatening to hold it up.]
September 15, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the heads up...
September 14, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a bunch of us got bitch-slapped with this cynicism. Yes, we had/have high expectations. But damn - 76% of voters favor a public option (NBC/WSJ). 73% of doctors favor a public option (NE Journal of Med). 47% of health care spending is already done by the Gov't (Congressman Anthony Weiner). And approximately $300 billion a year is extracted by the insurance industry (I said that) which doesn't pay for any health care. So how could we not do this?
The fact is, it's not that we CAN'T do this, it's that we WON'T. And that is very demoralizing. Cynicism is just a coping mechanism. Kind of like getting all pumped up in the locker room and the coach says, "OK, boys, let's go out there and tie this game up".
September 14, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant this to reply to Elizabeth2.
September 14, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I truly don't see what I said as cynicism -- just plain, old fashioned, garden-variety, everyday realism. The flat truth is that the power to enact legislation doesn't rest with the voters or the doctors: it rests with Congress. That's who Obama has to deal with. And I give thanks every day that we have a President who IS realistic and will get something, where a true idealist might well wind up with absolutely nothing ....... again.
I don't know if you were following politics when the Clintons came in vowing to get health care reform "as it should be." Trust me, having no public option in a bill that nevertheless contains a lot of other real reforms (and sets the stage for a public option if needed and when the country is more ready) is a LOT better than what we wound up with then! It still hurts to remember the high, high hopes we had, and to realize that all we got was a decade or more of silence before the topic could even be mentioned again.
Do you know how Canada got single-payer coverage? Saskatchewan One province enacted the "controversial" single-payer system and it worked so damn well all the other provinces wanted it too. Sometimes small steps do lead to big gains. But getting nowhere leads ... nowhere.
Teddy Kennedy was one of the best at actually getting things accomplished and his guiding principles were patience, persistence and a lot of hard work. So .... (is this any better?) ... let's go out there and push the ball another 10 yards! Maybe we'll just tie, maybe we'll win, maybe we'll set ourselves up for a win later --- but we WON'T simply give up!
September 14, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to your comments about Synch's mood. I have personally felt it also and was just trying to explain how that cynicism can get to you (me).
So I was not inferring that you were being cynical. And much of what you say is certainly true. But this opportunity was soooooooo full of promise. And yes, Obama has to work with Congress. But where might Congress be if Barak had been on the stump in May and June and July?
It is just very frustrating.
September 14, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got it! I was a bit confused. No prob.
And I do know that it's discouraging. It's probably age (mine is quite advanced) but I'm still just so giddy of being out of the Bush years (41 and 43) and Regan years before then. The simple fact that they are even speaking words like "health care" and that we have a president who will grab a public option (or even single-payer) if there is any chance to do so seems pretty wonderful. Don't know if that makes me wise .... or just very easy to please.
As to May, June and July ... I find it really hard to critique the President's decisions about how to use his time and resources. We really don't know all that is on his desk, after all, and I'm sure it's daily triage. Personally glad I don't have to make decisions with such far-reaching consequences! And can you imagine all the many and varied constituencies who believe, with some justification, that they were critical in his win and that he should therefore address their particular issue first?
All you can ask of anyone, even the President, is the best they can do, and I do believe - hope you do also - that Pres. Obama has consistently made the decisions that he believes is best for the country, all of its challenges and crises.
September 15, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
If California were smart and able, it would be able to implement a single payer system and that alone would rescue their budget.
Some state needs to be a bell weather.
P.S. - Mandates without a realistic cost cap/control is horrible. It is just another taxpayer windfall for investors who lost their pants on derivatives.
September 15, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the deal with the Universal system enacted in MA? I've heard all sorts of things about how it hasn't worked well, and others that say it is a success. Can you or anyone else speak to that? I honestly haven't looked at it much at all, and will try to do so later.
September 15, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's something that just came out today: http://www.pr-inside.com/massachusetts-health-reform-wins-innovations-r1480796.htm.
I don't live in MA any longer, but friends have said the program has had its kinks but is getting better with time.
September 15, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! It would be nice if we could refer to some of the successes to make a case for the P.O.
September 15, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point about CA!
Would not that also apply to our economy as a whole as well?
September 15, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
CA, BTW, has co-ops. They have not been very successful.
September 15, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. They stink.
Schwarzie pushed for mandates a few years ago. Didn't work. And now they are gutting medical in perfect timing with the upcoming Baucus Plan to come along and kick us in the nads.
September 15, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to add insult to injury, when you get kicked in the nads your health insurance won't cover the injury because nads, as you very well know, are a pre-existing condition.
September 15, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby recommend this comment.
September 15, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey ... he added Letterman to the media blitz.
September 15, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Letterman ranks higher than Fox.
You see? The President is accommodating. For months, Fox has been complaining that Obama is all over the media; "too much Obama"; and didn't even run his speech. I'm glad the President took them at their word: why force something on them?
There can be no tug-of-war when one lets go of the rope.
September 15, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink