« No Public Option with a Trigger | Ripper McCord's Blog | I Recommend This Post ... er, That Post »
No More Mr. Nice President
President Obama served notice to Republicans tonight that bipartisanship only goes so far. He can play hardball as well as anyone.
So the president repeatedly used the politically verboten word "lie" to describe ... Republican lies. He said he would "call out" those who continued to misrepresent the health care plan. He got in their faces about "scare tactics" and set the record straight right in front of them, forcing the crow down their throats while they sat their fuming and shamed. He made it clear he would not forfeit his presidency on the altar of working well and playing nice with people bent on taking him down.
And then he did something truly remarkable: Perhaps inspired by the letter from Teddy, he laid out the liberal philosophy better than any Democratic president has in decades. The fact that millions of independents watched and heard the unfiltered message of liberalism from his bully pulpit made it all the more sweet. Americans love freedom, true, but we must also love our neighbor, our community and our country. Here was a Democratic president putting a bright light inside the concept of personal responsibility, alongside which the Republican version of that idea turns out to be nothing more than a selfish urge to avoid any responsibility at all.
Tonight, I saw Barack Obama as I saw him before the election. Did I hear everything I wanted to hear? Not by a long shot. But I heard him put the Republicans on notice: Fuck with me again like you have on health care and I'll show you the meaning of fierce.
So the president repeatedly used the politically verboten word "lie" to describe ... Republican lies. He said he would "call out" those who continued to misrepresent the health care plan. He got in their faces about "scare tactics" and set the record straight right in front of them, forcing the crow down their throats while they sat their fuming and shamed. He made it clear he would not forfeit his presidency on the altar of working well and playing nice with people bent on taking him down.
And then he did something truly remarkable: Perhaps inspired by the letter from Teddy, he laid out the liberal philosophy better than any Democratic president has in decades. The fact that millions of independents watched and heard the unfiltered message of liberalism from his bully pulpit made it all the more sweet. Americans love freedom, true, but we must also love our neighbor, our community and our country. Here was a Democratic president putting a bright light inside the concept of personal responsibility, alongside which the Republican version of that idea turns out to be nothing more than a selfish urge to avoid any responsibility at all.
Tonight, I saw Barack Obama as I saw him before the election. Did I hear everything I wanted to hear? Not by a long shot. But I heard him put the Republicans on notice: Fuck with me again like you have on health care and I'll show you the meaning of fierce.
Advertisement
Beautifully said, Rip. But, if I may:
I also heard him appeal to Independents:
"One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate."
He said this right before introducing the contents of Ted Kennedy's letter.
To me, it speaks to those who wish to retain their liberties. To me, it speaks to those who wear firearms at health care rallies. To me, it need not have been said as an intro to Ted Kennedy, in other words. To me, it spoke to those out there who would rather spit on Teddy's grave than nod their heads in honor to it.
Those few words he used in introduction to his closing statement about Kennedy spoke volumes.
September 10, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he was speaking to the fringe sidearm carriers, Lis. A lot of independents who voted for him fall into the "rugged individualist" category. They care about freedom and can be influenced by the right, as they have been this August. That's why they're in-between. He was shooting for the center in many of his remarks. But he also redefined the center a little more to the left than the Republcans had swung it.
September 10, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Ripper. What's more, I think he reclaims those sentiments for the left. Self-reliance goes back to Emerson, who was no right winger. Rugged Individualism? For me, that means the protection of unpopular ideas. No more assaults on the Americanism of radicals. Fierce defense of freedom? That's gay rights and the right to marry whomever I please. Size and scope of government? For me that's "don't ask, don't tell," Privacy for e-mails, including privacy from employer snooping with the blessings of the Supreme Court, and a ton of other things I'd want government to keep its nose out of. Bigger government here, smaller government there, I can be noisy on both sides. Great post all over.
September 10, 2009 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Bigger government here, smaller government there, I can be noisy on both sides."
That's a grand, grand statement!!! Emblazon it somewhere.
Also, if you think government should keep its nose out of individual, private decisions surrounding the last moments of life, then leave Teri Schaivo alone!!
September 10, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, amike. That's exactly what I was thinking, but you said it better :)
September 10, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bigger government here, smaller government there, I can be noisy on both sides.
Really, isn't that what it is all about, he asked, ending his sentence with a preposition. Where is government too big, defense? Where too small, healthcare? The financial arena, which, deplorably has become the same thing.
September 10, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love your subject heading! And very much agree with your comments. Thanks for saying it so well.
September 10, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. We were finally cheering in chat. ha
I have been playing songs of jubilation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAXKIKehbc
This was a good day.
Thank you for this post.
September 10, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope as the day begins more & more people will chime in with positive remarks, early polling already indicated positive numbers.
No one ever gets it all, but it is hard to argue his points were not clearly, eloquently made & certainly, the slap back or down or whatever you want to call it was magnificent. If you didn't love that, very likely you would not be partial to this blog, unless in role of troll. The eloquent part was, of course, the tribute to Teddy. All I know for certain is I felt a lot better after the speech than I did before it.
September 10, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's in the hearts and minds that a victory will be won.
September 10, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Ripper. The stuff about Teddy and liberal ideals...I've always wondered how the right could hate so badly our desire to make people's lives better and to do so en mass. I was happy to hear Obama address this so directly. The idea that we simply want a "bigger government" is so...so...well, it's fuckin' ridiculous. What would be the point of that? But there it is. I hope Obama follows through with both his promises AND his threats. The Rep Wilsons of the world should be made to eat it on national television.
I do wish, however, that Obama would've thrown in one line: (looking for and finding her in the crowd, then) "Oh, and by the way, Jean Schmidt, you silly, ignorant slut, I AM AN AMERICAN!"
September 10, 2009 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, a little shout out to Ms. Schmidt would have been refreshing as well.
September 10, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, Ripper. Thanks
I was definitely apprehensive before the speech. And I felt much better afterwards. But I am a little disappointed with the 2013 target date for implementation. Of course it's doubtful that the health lobby can continue to spend $1.4 mil per day until then.
September 10, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone remember how long it took to fully implement Medicare, or have an idea where I could go to hunt that information up? I'm back in class tehse days so my search time isn't as generous as it was--stuff back in the 1960s isn't as easy to pin down as it is now. I know when the law was enacted, but the process of implementation is a little tricker to follow.
September 10, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This page at the Social Security Administration provides links to a document providing the history prior to and through the founding of Medicare.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/corning.html
THE EVOLUTION OF MEDICARE . . . from idea to law
by Peter A. Corning
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a history page at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/History/
The PDF "Key Milestones in CMS Programs [PDF, 2.24MB]" lists some of the major events since the creation of the program. There is also a milestones document on Medicaid specifically.
September 10, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thankee, Merrill. I'm in your debt.
September 10, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was almost what I was looking for. The history is fascinating. What I'm trying to find is more mundane...the amount of time between the passing of the bill in the summer of 1965 and the first request for reimbursement and the first payment. In other words...how long did it take for the administration of the program to gear up and get it actually running. If you or anyone else can help with that, I'd appreciate it.
(I'm trying to work a comparison between the roll-out time Obama mentioned last night and the roll-out time for Medicare).
September 10, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a poster indicating that first payments would be made in 1966.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/near65s.html
But I don't think that you can make changes so fast any more. Anything involving significant changes to information technology systems is an 18 month or more project -- especially if it involves vendor contracting, implementation, testing, etc.
September 10, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0795/is_2_27/ai_n16108607/
September 10, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, in other words, depending on the state, it may have been several years, which means the the federal government was more efficient in setting things up than the states are. I'm not surprised. I agree that things may take longer now...especially if a unified medical database is established the same time.
September 10, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome.
September 10, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some interesting dates from http://www.ssa.gov/history/cornignappa.html
1912 Social insurance, including health insurance, endorsed in platform of Progressive Party and espoused by its candidate, Theodore Roosevelt.
1916, December. American Medical Association (AMA) Social Insurance Committee, headed by Dr. Alexander Lambert, recommends compulsory, State-run health insurance..
1935, July 15. First Government health insurance bill introduced in Congress, the "Epstein bill" (S. 3253) sponsored by Senator Capper.
1943, June 3. Original Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill, providing for comprehensive health insurance under social security (S. 1161 and H.R. 2861) introduced. Congress takes no action on proposal. [Note: this was the bill by the current Rep. Dingell's father referenced in Obama's speech.]
1950, August 28. Social Security Act amendments of 1950 include grants to States for "vendor payments" in behalf of welfare recipients.
1960, June 13. After more than 3 months of deliberation, Ways and Means Committee reports Social Security amendments (H.R. 12580), including a new program of Federal grants to the States for medical services to the "medically indigent" elderly.
1960, September 13. Kerr-Mills bill signed into law.
1965, July 30. Medicare (as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965) signed into law by President Johnson.
I've omitted lots of "sausage making" between 1960 and 1965.
September 10, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He certainly shamed them. Will he back that up? Remains to be seen but hopefully he will. He definitely gave a much needed boost to the forces of progress. His posture and rhetoric were certainly much more encouraging than the defeatist leaks coming out of the White House last week about him being willing to sign anything, etc...
The key now is not to give the obstructionists any further opportunities to delay or to develop new lies to distract the media and thus the public, to keep the legislation moving and moving quickly. I continue to believe that without a very strong public option it is just an insurance reform and subsidy program and not reform of the healthcare system at all.
September 10, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I have my chess vs. checkers fantasy working, I think Obama stayed silent long enough to know the Congress could not get it done without him. Now, he has stepped into the game for the homestretch. This will get done and he will get the glory. In my fantasy, this was a brilliant political move and perfectly timed. It was completely intentional. My only concern is whether he will be the LAST President to face healthcare reform. methinks if there is no public option, there is no reform, we're just switching seats on the Titanic.
September 10, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. No public option, no reform. But making matters much, much worse is that if a bad bill is enacted the reform effort will be an albatross around the neck of every Democrat, especially Obama's. That is the whole purpose of the Republicans, first to wreck any reform effort but if that cannot be achieved, to make whatever does pass as unworkable, cumbersome and honerous as possible. That's where the idiotic placebo's of coops and triggers come in. Congressman Weiner said tonight on MSNBC that he continues to believe that without a strong public option no bill will pass. I hope and pray he is right.
September 10, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not call myself a "Rugged Individualism" type by a long shot. However there is on very big difference between me and all those on the right.
Where as they do not trust government, I do not trust the private sector at all. Sure I don't expect to get a shinny new thing-ma-bob from government. On the other hand if I did buy one from the private sector - it would not surprise me in the least to find nothing but empty space on the inside where the "guts of the machine" should be.
In other words every time I have to deal with the private sector - especially now - I make damn sure I have a good stiff grip on my wallet.
C
September 10, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Rugged Individualist" sounds like something that you'd see on match.com or eharmony when trying to pump up the profile.
September 10, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
wink
September 10, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raging Convivialist ISO soulmate(s). No loners.
September 10, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the context, Rip.
September 10, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink