Enough with the Obamathon
15 June 2009 12:26 am by lynnette
http://tinyurl.com/nnnj3n
This is an op-ed by comedian Bill Maher that appeared in the L.A. Times. Maher is a progressive who does not think Obama is doing enough of what he promised. What do you think?
This post was submitted by lynnette.
No tags for this post.
The corresponding video can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/mkb69e
Lynette,
This took a lot of nerve. But the point should be made- if you voted for Obama to bring change (beyond the color of his skin) – then hold his admi istration to bringing the change you voted for on November 4, 2008.
And the hard one that will help turn this country around morally, ethically and financially is health care. The easier one that will help protect this nation and do what is right morally and ethically can be done with a stroke of his mighty pen.
Well, we kind of danced around the edges of this throughout the last few days and Taylor made some comments about media and the lack of holding the president accountable (something to that effect). I took her comments seriously and want to see if we can elevate the discussion/debate. I want to hear what people think.
I’ll make one more comment and then it’s off to sleep. I was a strong Hillary supporter in the primaries, as you know. It took me awhile to make the transition, but I did and voted for Obama in the general election. I’ve really grown to like him very much and think he has the potential to be one of our finest presidents ever, but I am not sure he can be that unless he pushes his more progressive side, because those are the policies that will bring the change people are so clearly looking for, IMO. He seems more fixated on the bipartisanship which I also know is admirable, but to what avail? And I want to give him time because he has so many issues on his plate. But I can’t help but think Maher brings up a valid point, too. So I would like to get some opinions and thoughts on this from the regulars and maybe some lurkers.
…well, I’ll just reiterate what I said the other day, as lynnette mentioned we talked around this a bit. What is Obama doing with his power? Start there. I’ll be reading.
“It’s getting to where you can’t turn on your TV without seeing Obama. Who does he think he is, Dick Cheney? Come on, sir, you don’t have to be on television every minute of every day.”
WTF? I can’t think of a better way to be an ‘open book’ to the entire world – and actually participate in the concept of ‘Total Honesty’ – than to be ‘there’ on the screen constantly. If I could have my way, there’d be new cable channels with 24/7 cameras attached to every politician we elect. That would be one of the little ‘inconveniences’ of being an elected and ‘paid’ employee of the people. Too bad that ‘candid camera’ wasn’t attached to John Edwards.
But Yes – I think there should be a ‘WhiteHouse Channel’. In fact? WHY the Hell isn’t there? considering I can view my local county and city meetings on the local channel ? Why shouldn’t we watch every move our politicians make ?
From Lynette’s Maher post – some points:
Obama needs to start putting it on the line in fights against the banks, the energy companies and the healthcare industry. I never thought I’d say this, but he needs to be more like George W. Bush. ……”You’re with us or against us.”
Obama’s more like, “You’re either with us, or you obviously need to see another picture of this adorable puppy!”
………………………..
And we need to marry the good ideas Obama really believes in with that Bush attitude and Bush certitude.
…………………………………………………..
I’m glad that Obama is president, but the “Audacity of Hope” part is over. Right now, I’m hoping for a little more audacity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Republicans step up the anti-Obama-speak
……………………………………..
In recent weeks, GOP leaders and rank-and-file members have offered stinging rebukes of the Democratic control in Washington in terms that Democrats say have gone over the line.
Last week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said Obama’s handling of the faltering U.S. auto industry is “almost like looking at Putin’s Russia.”
That came as Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was drawing heat from Democrats for saying that he told Chinese leaders that “the budget numbers that the U.S. has put forward should not be believed” and that Congress would spend more than what is contained in the budget.
Just days before, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said at a fundraising dinner for House and Senate Republicans that Obama’s efforts to stimulate the economy and save automakers have “already failed.”
…………………………….
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said after Cantor’s comments this week that the approach is alienating even members of the Republican Party.
‘………………………..38 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents viewed the GOP unfavorably.
………………………………………………………………………………….
Democrats point to comments made by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) in recent months which said Obama was well on his way to becoming the “abortion president.”
………………………………………………………………
Gingrich has also caused a stir in recent weeks by labeling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a “racist,” because she said that experiencing life as a Hispanic woman might make her a better judge than a white man.
……………………………………………………
Bachmann’s well-publicized statements have led to the creation of a section on the DCCC’s website devoted solely to her.
And Sessions has drawn some heat for saying to the New York Times last month that the Obama administration deliberately sought to “diminish employment and diminish stock prices” in order to “divide and conquer” in Washington. Prior to that, Sessions suggested Republicans could take lessons about “insurgency” from the Taliban.
……………………………………………………………………….
“At some point Democrats are going to have to come to grips with the fact that they won the 2008 election and start governing,” Spain said.
Van Hollen said it’s time for Republicans to stop lobbing bombs and become a part of the process.
“Republicans should stop the name-calling, roll up their sleeves, and start working with the president and congressional Democrats to turn the economy around,” he said.
While President Obama if trying bipartisanship with the Republicans he’s gouging the eye of the Democrat that won’t toe his line. He’s spending his political capital on the Republicans.
During the Bush’s presidency, Maher criticized conservatives for not acting like conservatives and for putting “party and personality” over “principles and policy”.
Maher’s intellectually consistency is both refreshing and, unfortunately, rare.
Further, like other principled-progressives for whom policy trumps personality (Krugman, Savage, Taylor, to name a few) it’s good to see Maher use his platform to pressure Obama from the left as opposed to “circling the wagons”.
Good for Maher!
I am not dissatisfied with President Obama. He is doing a good job – he has the intellectual capability and calm, steady, thoughtful demeanor to be a great president.
However, he is not bold and not willing to risk political capital as evidenced by his inactivity on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
I remember many liberals who would not support Hillary because she was “a politician” “politically expedient” “too moderate”, etc. and they really thought Obama would be different.
Well, he’s not – he is a politician and he is not willing to take controversial stands. If you thought otherwise, you were (so far) wrong.
c chicago says:
15 June 2009 at 10:01 am
I’m in your corner c chicago. I think Obama has done a good job so far but it’s not enough. He needs to really be bold and tell his opposition where they can go. Otherwise, his administration is going to be nothing more than pablum.
He needs to move while he can – before his political capital is disapated.
c chicago says:
15 June 2009 at 10:01 am I remember many liberals who would not support Hillary because she was “a politician” “politically expedient” “too moderate”, etc. and they really thought Obama would be different.
I think because of Hillary’s Iraq War vote, that there was this impression she was more conservative than Obama, who spoke out against the war when he was in the Illinois State Senate. And that may be true foreign policy wise, but domestically I think (IMO) she was more progressive than President Obama and President Clinton. I saw this in her health care plan, abortion rights, LGBT policies, etc. I think there were quite a few progressives that supported her but it wasn’t reported in the media so much. And they are all politicians when it comes down to it, I don’t care who it is. Until we have public financing of campaigns, it won’t change much.
Every time I try to leave, Lynnette pulls me back in.
It’s a typical Monday, so I won’t be able to stick around long. But I think Lynnette’s posed a very important question, and I’d feel remiss if I didn’t take up her charge to debate this.
I agree completely with Maher’s primary charge: that Obama is overexposed. White House wants to sell health care? Obama makes a speech. Aid to car companies? Call up Obama. Financial regulation? Same. I understand that the White House is trying to leverage Obama’s personal appeal, but this is excessive. If you don’t have confidence in members of your Cabinet to sell your policies, then get new members. (Geithner comes to mind.) But Obama is on TV entirely too much, and things like the Brian Williams special don’t help. And I don’t much like Olbermann or any of his cast of characters either. And least not in their TV incarnations. GeoT, that’s just my view — let’s not get into another flame war about Keith O.
As an example of a hard-hitting, but fair, interview, I commend to you David Gregory’s interview of Joe Biden on MTP yesterday. I sensed neither excessive deference or an axe-grinding agenda. The questions were tough on both foreign and domestic policy. And I thought Joe Biden did a capable job answering them. But Obama’s the president — I would much have preferred hearing him respond to Gregory’s insistent questioning. (As an aside, I also enjoyed the follow-up roundtable with Scarborough and Mike Murphy. Republicans would do well to take their advice. Happily, I don’t think they will.)
Which brings me to Maher’s second charge: Obama should borrow a page from Bush’s playbook and just ram his policy prescriptions through already. Sorry, that’s where I disagree. To state my recurring point: I believe in progressive ends, but I disagree in many instances with the means advocated. Take health care as an example. All you hear from progressives is “single payer — single payer — single payer.” That’s their sine qua non, and it’s like nothing else matters. From conservatives, you hear an opposite mantra about “rationing health care,” replete with comparisons to Canada and — gasp! — Europe.
In this issue, as in many others, we are like the five blind men and the elephant: we’re each touching a piece, but none of us is touching the whole animal. The fact is, IMHO, that progressives AND conservatives are both right to some degree. Holistic health reform has to address the many components that add to costs. Balkanized private insurance programs and attendent bureaucratic waste is one. That would argue for something like single-payer (or at least a public plan or regulated monopoly concept). On the other hand, it is an absolute fact that the cost of medical care is driven in part by the cost of liability insurance to doctors. So tort reform should also be a part. And because of the “moral hazard” inherent in insurance, there must be added incentives to dissuade people from over-consuming health care. Samuelson has an op-ed in today’s WaPo that makes this very point: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061402444.html The flip-side of Samuelson’s point is the “adverse selection” problem — making sure you include everyone.
So round and round we go. The point is, both progressives and conservatives have valid points. A good health care plan would incorporate all of these ideas. So when Obama presses for bipartisanship, I don’t consider it a grand plan to sacrifice progressives’ ideals on the altar of kumbayah. Rather, I think he understands the complexity of the issue, and is trying to get as close to the optimal solution as the political environment will permit. And he is trying to use his personal appeal to affect the political environment.
Jeez, this is a long reply. But you asked for it, Lynnette. I hope you’re happy.
Jane Austen says:
15 June 2009 at 10:26 am
Hi Jane. How are you? Instinctively, I agree with your stance. But I keep remembering what Ogenec told me about Obama employing “the different means to the same ends” strategy. I sometimes think, Well, maybe Obama knows something I don’t. So I keep wondering.
ogenec says:
15 June 2009 at 10:45 am
Oh my God, Ogenec!! We’re reading eachother’s minds at the same time – look at the post below yours! This is scary.
I knew you couldn’t resist.
I tried to analyze my feelings on Obama’s presidency the other day and came up with two one major things I am very diappointed in and that is the lack of movement on DADT, and the fact that he didn’t push to eliminate earmarks, or at least bring it up for discussion.
There are some other more minor points, and some missteps, but on the whole I think he’s doing a good balancing high-wire act. Calling out the GOP on issues like health care looks great, but the bottom line is the media in this country seems firmly determined, under the guise of fariness, to put forth GOP talking points that often are just demonstrable lies and scare tactics. A perfect example is Liz Cheney saying that her father never claimed that there was link between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. For God’s sakes, just go to the videotape.
I think Obama genuinelly underestimated how bad the climate is in Washington. I also believe he never in a million years thought the GOP as a PARTY could be this close to being traitorous. When 9/11 occurred except for some of the very far left Democratic politicians there was at least unanimity of purpose in Washington. We were attacked, come together, etc.
The economic meltdown is affecting this country every bit as much as 9/11, but in different ways. The GOP reaction has been to use it politically. The stupidity/ignorance/poison out of the mouths of the GOP truly frightens me. I never believed they were that bad. I think Panetta nailed it with Cheney. He would like to see the US attacked just to show everyone how right he is. Because, after all, Bush/Cheney kept us safe, well except for a few thousand killed.
The time for bipartisanship is ending, the Republicans truly are the party of Limbaugh and Palin (I saw part of her interview with Wolf Blitzer, and I realize that all her unscripted answers to questions are streams of consciousness, where she just rambles on until she runs out of things to say. She seems incapable of critical thinking, where she lays out an argument and presents a solution. Her answer to everything is government bad, private sector good).
There are basically two Republicans that Obama can work with, Collins and Snowe of Maine. The rest of the Senate is joke, including many of the Democrats.
I just hope he can get enough of his agenda on health care through to make a difference, and then he has to go for the Big Cheese, the structural changes in this country needed to tackle the deficit, which is unsustainable.
Hey, Lynnette. Happy to chime in. This is a wonderful post, and I hope it generates lots of discussion.
What is Obama doing with his power?
Keeping his personal approval numbers high.
IMO he hasn’t done crap.
Pmichael – there is a white house tv channel. Read Jake Tappers columns, he writes frequently about it and isn’t very happy about it. And if I remember correctly Bush had the same thing. I don’t know the availability to the public because to my knowledge I don’t receive it.
kris says:
15 June 2009 at 11:32 am
What would you like to see him do?
Something of substance other than talk.
The thing that disturbs me the most is that he talks a great game and then doesn’t have the courage to produce.
Stimulus package which was a waste of money.
Taking over the auto companies which has long term negative consequences, IMO.
Continuing almost all Bush policies when it comes to secrecy.
No action or talk on DADT and then the latest on DOMA which I posted about already.
More troops in Afghanistan which is a sewer hole and will never change, again IMO.
For all the hope, changey discussion nothing seems to have changed much. I expect principled stands on issues that matter. Win or lose, take a position. He is not bold in anything but talk and that seems to be going by the wayside as well. Every statement, as I have said before, seems to come with an expiration date.
Hey there people!!
I am concerned about the health care issue. I read yesterday (don’t know where) about the health care in Canada and how conservatives here in the US have lied about it. It is doing very well and the majority of the people are really happy with it. I have talked to Canadians about their health care and they say that they are very satisfied.
I’m really concerned about this co-op idea. The insurance company will eat them alive.
I am really all for what the Canadians have. And I’ll leave it at that. I AM concerned that Obama is listening too much to the Republicans. And as far as people being happy with their present health care plan, let’s be realistic, those people must be very wealthy because people I talk to (blue collar people) can only afford the bare minimum in health care and THAT cost is outrageous. I do not believe we can go on like this. And let me pose this problem. You pay into your health insurance. You have an operation that let’s say costs $15,000, your insurance company will only pay $4000. The hospital writes off the rest, but the big question is this; what the hell are these insurance companies doing with all the money that they rake in from the people.
There are a few other things that I’m concerned about with Obama. One is that he is trying to hard to appease the Republicans and they are continuously stabbing him the back. Frankly he needs to get some cajones.
Thanks Kris. Hi Betsy. Obama will be speaking to the American Medical Association momentarily.
I disagree 100% with those who say the stimulus package is a waste of money. In times of severe recession government spending is necessary. The timing could have been better, although most economists push for the governemnt spending to occur further in the future to attempt to layer the job creation.
I found the article about the Canadian health care. It was in Huffpo yesterday. Got it off Twitter.
http://tinyurl.com/mg4rxd
DaveB I agree with you totally. I do not believe the stimulus package is a waste of money. I too have read what the majority of economists say about it.
Well, now we have Lieberman saying that there doesn’t need a public health care plan. Do these guys have their heads in the sand? What the heck, does he and others not understand that wives are having to work just to pay health insurance. But I forget they as Congress have a very good plan and cheap.
Betsy, I agree with you to a great extent. I believe Canada’s system has much to commend it. But there are other considerations as well. I mentioned liability insurance. That is an issue not just because of cost, but because of the perverse incentives it creates. Take primary care. There is a dearth of primary care physicians because medical students have figured out that primary care pays the least, but exposes them to about the risk of a malpractice suit. So the students choose other specialties. That means there’s little supply for primary care, which in turn means that people don’t see their primary care physician when medical problems might be nipped in the bud. Instead, they wait until problems become more acute, which results in higher bills for everybody.
We need to get back to a system that incentivizes preventive care. Reducing health care premiums alone will not do it. Eliminating bureaucratic waste alone will not do it. These are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. You also need to reduce the cost structure for primary care physicians. So I think medical malpractice reform has to be part of the mix. I hope Obama speaks to that.
I saw two things that caught my eye. The first makes the primary care point: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/585550
The second is from someone who worked on the Clinton healthcare plan and it expresses his concerns that past may be prologue as far as the healthcare debate is concerned: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=55e79b52-4029-4af5-b08c-acb599d600b7
Last point, if we are being candid, is that we need more specifics on how this is to be paid for. We’re talking $1 trillion, folks. I’m not enamored of the administration’s “dynamic scoring,” which counts unrealized efficiencies in the future as cost savings TODAY.
“exposes them to about the same risk…”
Betsy says:
15 June 2009 at 1:20 pm
I saw that, too. Howard Dean was on with Norah O’Donnell this morning and said the problem is in the Senate. Basically too many bought off by the insurance and big pharma companies. He also said the co-op idea of Senator Conrad’s won’t work because you need at least 500,000 people to buy into it for it to have enough leverage and buying power. Many smaller states with smaller populations won’t get that number to sign up. I’d love to see Lieberman’s campaign contributions.
I thought the President’s speech was good. If he can get all that he spoke about, it would be a solid beginning for reform. He did come out in support of the public plan, but again, how the final product ends up (the devil is in the details) and how it affects affordability is what will matter the most. He said the right things. Now let’s see if he will use his political capital and high approval ratings to see this through. This is a big test for him because there is going to be powerful opposition, but I am confident if Obama the fighter/persuader shows up, we’ll get a decent result.
ogenec says:
15 June 2009 at 1:26 pm
I read the second article and it is very insightful. Well at least there is a previous administration’s mistakes to learn from, which is a good thing for the present one. Yes, Obama does have to emphasize how this will be paid for, etc. but the way I look at it is at least the people will get something for the cost. With the bank bailouts, we got absolutely nothing in return, that I can see anyway. And like Obama said, the war in Iraq’s costs were more than this. Single payer would take away a lot of the costs we are discussing, but unfortunately, it doesn’t look like it’s in the cards.
I think because of Hillary’s Iraq War vote, that there was this impression she was more conservative than Obama, who spoke out against the war
—————–
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania presidential candidate forum at Drexel
Russert: Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?
Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…
(Unknown): Wait a minute…
Dodd: No, no, no. You said — you said yes…
Clinton: No.
Dodd: … you thought it made sense to do it.
It was not only Hillary’s Iraq War Resolution vote that was used against her. Her vote was used as part of the character assassinations that ‘her vote was only political’, that ‘she can’t be trusted’. Hillary lost when Tim Russert at Pennsylvania presidential candidate forum at Drexel, set her up with the straw dog question that give the impression that she supported illegal immigrant getting driver’s license? When she tried to correct that (or explain IWR vote) , she was attacked as a flip-flop liar or treated with ridicule or contempt; derided, this lead to 6 weeks of Edwards Obama tag-team attacks on Hillary’s character before the Iowa primaries.
Obama has always been a HAWK and fooled the left that he was an anti-war DOVE.
Obama 2002: “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars”
JimK says:
15 June 2009 at 8:34 pm
___________________________
Whoa! Righton, dude!
Here is a link to a recent article in the Washington Post about the conflict of interest going on in the health care “debate”.
“Almost 30 key lawmakers helping draft landmark health-care legislation have financial holdings in the industry, totaling nearly $11 million worth of personal investments in a sector that could be dramatically reshaped by this summer’s debate.”
– full article at: http://tiny.cc/aLAvy
JimK says:
15 June 2009 at 8:34 pm
Great point. Thanks. I forgot about that.
AliceP says:
15 June 2009 at 10:02 pm
$11 million is at the low end – might be as high as 27 million. The picture becomes clearer when you read this article as to why progress is so darn hard. Thanks.
Bill Maher was on the Keith Olbermann show tonight discussing Obama, the AMA, and health care reform. Maybe some of you caught it.