Pin Obama Down
President Obama seems to be in the midst of a mini press tour at the moment. To help any future mainstream media interviewers out (should they be at a loss for questions to ask the president), I think it's time to pin Obama down on a few subjects.
So today I offer up the questions I would ask, were I interviewing President Obama in the next week or so. Because you never know what media outlet he'll pop up in next.
Mister President, the story broke this week that your Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, went to Majority Leader Harry Reid's office and told him to give Joe Lieberman whatever he wanted, just so any bill could pass with the title "healthcare reform." The White House immediately denied the story, leading me to wonder: does Emanuel still have your support, or are you thinking of replacing him?
Cuts to the heart of the matter. Rahm Emanuel was sold as a guy who could "get things done" in Congress, with his "Chicago-style" politics, which in the past has included sending dead fish to people Rahm disagreed with. But, time after time, Rahm comes down on the side of political expediency over passing strong legislation. He is not "knocking heads together" up on Capitol Hill, so much as he is kowtowing to the most conservative elements in the Democratic Party, while continually ignoring (or worse, insulting) the progressives in the party, otherwise known as "the base." This has been excused by some on the left who imagine that Emanuel is somehow pushing his own agenda, independent of what Obama tells him to do. So nail it down -- either Emanuel is just carrying out his boss' instructions; or, conversely, he is a disloyal employee ("off the reservation" as it were) and should be fired. Obama, to the best of my knowledge, has never been pinned down on any of this. By framing it as an "are you going to fire him" question, it forces Obama to come out and strongly support Emanuel's actions. Which would put the blame (for those inclined to lay blame) squarely where it belongs -- in the Oval Office, not in the office next door.
At this point, Mister President, you are being portrayed by the rank-and-file of your own party as being willing to sign anything -- the D.C. copy of the Yellow Pages, for instance -- that has a cover sheet on it labelling it "healthcare reform." Is this accurate, and if not, what would cause you to veto any bill Congress passes that calls itself "healthcare reform"? Where is your line in the sand, sir?
This will probably elicit some form of the repetition of "these are my goals I set out for Congress," but a followup should be ready to go: "But what if whatever Congress passes doesn't achieve those goals -- would you veto such a bill?"
A recent poll showed that 81 percent of Democrats polled wanted the Senate to strip Joe Lieberman of his powerful committee chairmanship on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. If Senator Lieberman joins with the Republicans in a filibuster attempt to deny healthcare legislation an up-or-down vote in the Senate, would you support Senate Democrats in removing Lieberman's chairmanship?
Once again, I'm not aware that Obama's ever been pinned down on exactly what he thinks of Joe Lieberman. Which is looming as the issue of the week, since some are starting to wonder if Lieberman is the most powerful man in Washington right now. Barack Obama is, by default, the leader of his party. And, as the highest Democrat in office, he should be asked about movements from within the party on leadership issues. Of course, he will likely attempt to brush this off with a non-answer, but he really should at least be asked the question of whether he'll support efforts to remove Lieberman's chairmanship or not.
Your entire campaign for president was based somewhat on the premise that you would go to Washington and fight for the little guy -- the common man. How do you think you've done in delivering on this promise?
This is quite obviously a leading question, to set up the next one. But, to be polite, I'd give him a chance to make the case on his own, at first.
But the perception exists, sir, that you have fought valiantly for the big guys on Wall Street -- to the tune of even fighting against any executive pay caps -- but when it comes to the guys on Main Street, you have been largely silent. Or ineffective. Or even actively working against their interests. It is rumored that within your White House is a belief that this perception will get better if you pass healthcare reform. But what if that is not enough? What specifically will you call upon Congress to do early next year to fight on the side of the little guy, for once?
I've heard this, from Washington insiders -- that Obama's White House is confident that passing healthcare reform is going to be some sort of magic turning point where the electorate turns a corner and starts seeing things in a better light. While passing strong reform may indeed cause a bump in the polls, passing weak reform (reform in name only) may even cause Obama's numbers to go further southwards. It is not at all clear whether they realize this over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, so it needs to be pointed out.
Do you realize, sir, that you're losing the base of your party, as well as droves of independent voters, every time healthcare reform gets watered down? Just in the past few days, there have been increasing calls from the left that the bill the Senate -- led by Joe Lieberman -- has now put together is fatally flawed and deserves to be killed rather than passed. Howard Dean said in a radio interview, "This is essentially the collapse of healthcare reform in the United States Senate," and went on to say, "the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes." Does it worry you when you hear things like that, and a growing chorus of "kill the bill" from the left, in response to the concessions made to Joe Lieberman?
The Left, as an entity, has broken out today in open revolt against the Lieberman compromise. This was a bridge too far for a lot of folks, and some very influential voices are calling now to scrap the entire effort and begin anew next year. This is where we stand right now. Passing a bill watered down to the point of irrelevancy (or worse) is a bad option. Trying to pass such a huge bill next year, in an election year, should be seen as close to impossible. And, if there are fewer Democrats in Congress after next year's election, then we may have lost this generation's chance at true reform, and we won't even see the effort get seriously made for years to come. The last remaining chance may be the tortuous procedure of budget reconciliation -- which, if it worked, would likely produce a much stronger piece of legislation, since all the obstructionist Democratic senators could be completely ignored. But it's a slim reed of hope to cling to, at this point.
So I truly wish one of these intrepid reporters who actually does have access to President Obama would lay out for him the magnitude of the situation we now find ourselves in. The choices seem to be dwindling down to "bad," "worse," and "not very likely." Obama still seems to believe he can pull a rabbit out of this particular hat. We'll see if he's right. But, for now, he should at least be asked a few of these pertinent questions.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Just donated to a couple different efforts against Lieberman and wrote my Senator and Congressman telling them not to support the Sore Loserman healthcare reform.
Without any type of competition from the government, the healthcare industry doesn't give a damn how much they will be "regulated". Why?
Because they will simply raise prices to cover any type of regulation.
Maybe I'm missing something but I see very little left that seems good in "health care" reform.
First they sacrificed single payer. Then the public option. Then expanding Medicare. This isn't compromise. It's surrender.
Forgive me, Chris, but I just heard this on the radio and am still pissed.
-David
I think that CW hit things dead on ballz accurate when he said that Democrats are going to send to Obama the DC Yellow Pages and call it "Health Reform"..
Obama will then sign it, everyone will smooze, dance and go home happy at the huge "win"...
And we'll be where we are now...
Michale.....
michale, when you're right you're right, not nearly as often as you think you're right, but this time i think you're right.
'tis all.
Chris,
Those are all great questions that the President will NEVER be asked by the media, for reasons we know and understand all too well, or by anyone else, for that matter...unless, that is, you would be so fortunate as to put them to him yourself.
And, if you ask me, you are owed - at the very least - an opportunity to do just that for not being given standing at the democratic convention last year and having received all of the special treatment that would have accompanied it. That still bothers me!
You know, there are a few other issues that the President has not been pinned down on by a hapless media...the latest strategy for Afghanistan comes to my mind, first and foremost.
As for Joe Lieberman...I've heard that Joe will "see the light" eventually and vote for the bill. I can't seem to recall who in the administration said that. Of course, a Lieberman vote in the affirmative would probably mean that the bill isn't worth the...well, you know.
Is it just me or is 'political expediency' seriously close to being on its way to becoming the buzzword for this administration?
Chris, the man who ought to be pinned down is Lieberman. To date, he has offered seven different reasons against the public option, not one of which holds any water. Now he has said no to a Medicare extension he actually proposed himself three months ago. Yet none of our Sunday hosts will ask the Senator to explain himself, and the networks haven't done any critical examination.
That's just it, Chris. Obama refuses to be pinned down, period. He does not make enemies. Lieberman is the 60th vote and supports Obama on other important legislation. These are the rules of consensus politics.
It seems to me that it is NOT President Obama's job to come down on Lieberman or encourage action against Lieberman in any way, shape or form.
President Obama simply should NOT get involved in Party squabbling of this type.
Whether ya'all like it or not, President Obama is an AMERICAN President, NOT a DEMOCRAT President.
At least, that's the way he SHOULD be...
Is it just me or is 'political expediency' seriously close to being on its way to becoming the buzzword for this administration?
I have been saying that for weeks now...
It's also interesting to note that Dr Dean has gone on record as saying that the DunselCare bill in the Senate should be killed and Democrats should start over.
Ironically enough, that's the same thing that Republicans have been saying for months...
Ya know that Armageddon must be right around the corner if Dr Dean and Republicans are all on the same page... :D
Michale.....
With the exception of questions 3 and 4, every one of these is a "gotcha" question unsupported by any facts. "...the story broke this week.... The White House immediately denied the story...," "you are being portrayed...," "But the perception exists...," "you're losing the base of your party...," Every single other question assumes facts not in evidence and treats opinions as facts.
That's what's wrong with reporting. I want an objective gathering and reporting of facts, you want to promote yours', and others', biases.
As for Lieberman being punished, do you really think its a good idea for the majority party in congress to be able to "punish" a senator of another party, particularly an "interdependent", who doesn't vote the way they want? That's your idea of democracy? Why not just have an AJ trump up charges, convict and expel him? If we're so enamored of Bush era political tactics, at least Rethugs were effective. You think enraging Joe even more will make him more supportive of us?
Call me naive but I expect a press that will educate people when they want to shoot themselves in the foot, not cheer them on. With Dems having less than 60 without Joe everyone's angry, why? He's never claimed to be a Democrat. He won those committee assignments, instead of being treated as a freshman, as a bribe. Democrats never had 60, though you'd never know it by the reporting this past year. Everyone's angry because they've been blind-sided. They've been blind-sided because the reporting has not been factual. Retaliating because reality has intruded on everyone's fantasies is counter-productive and juvenile.
Congress does not report to Pres. Obama. They report to us. The ones to complain to about Joe are the voters in Connecticut, not Pres. Obama. As long as we prefer finding scapegoats instead of dealing with our problems, change and reform won't happen. That's what underpins Republican strategy. That's why we can't get a single Republican vote. They know all they have to do is frustrate us and we will go after "the usual suspects," the President and the party in power, not the actual people responsible.
That's why we can't get the votes we need. Our problem, unfortunately, isn't that the system doesn't work, its that it does; and we have a system of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Its not Pres. Obama's fault, its ours. As long as we insist on being stupid, egged on by eager reporters, we truly do get the government we deserve.
If we weren't so eager to eat our own we would be putting pressure on Republicans and winning some of their votes; then we wouldn't need Joe. But Republicans are not afraid, they are encouraged. They think we're stupid.—And they are right.
As for Lieberman being punished, do you really think its a good idea for the majority party in congress to be able to "punish" a senator of another party, particularly an "interdependent", who doesn't vote the way they want? That's your idea of democracy? Why not just have an AJ trump up charges, convict and expel him? If we're so enamored of Bush era political tactics, at least Rethugs were effective. You think enraging Joe even more will make him more supportive of us?
Although I would never presume to speak for CW ({cough} {cough} bullshit {cough} {cough} :D) I believe he has made the point previously that Dunselcare is sooo important to Democrats that if Lieberman won't support the Dems on Dunselcare, then there ain't no sense in keeping him (Lieberman) happy. In short, he is all but a Republican anyways, if he doesn't support Dunselcare.
While such a position has it's logic, with all due respect to CW, I think it is a bit short-sighted. There will always be something that is "ohhh sooo important" down the road that Democrats will want and/or need Lieberman's support on.
I honestly believe that Lieberman WANTS to support the Democrats. As mistaken and misguided as that desire is, Democrats must give him a reason to support them in the form of something that is good for Americans. Appealing to Party loyalty is akin to an Abuser begging an abused spouse to stay "for the sake of the children"...
Michale....
Michale,
My point was that not only is punishing Lieberman undemocratic, pinning all our hopes on Joe and giving 40 percent of the Senate a pass is, and always has been, stupid.
Obviously no-one's pointed out to you that democracy and coercion are mutually exclusive. I know that you don't have a problem with coercion in place of democracy but Democrats do. Its one of the reasons we're not Republicans.
..."Appealing to Party loyalty?" He's not in the party! He was defeated by Democrats in his primary. We expect loyalty from the guy we voted against?! His leaving the party so he could win reelection in spite of Democrats wasn't clue enough?
We've been unable to get a single Republican vote. Any one of the forty would have made Lieberman's unnecessary. They haven't maintained solidarity because they all come from safe districts; they've seen that by telling the world we don't need them, that they're irrelevant, because we have almost 60 votes; 60 with the independents like Joe. We've set ourselves up to fail. To take the fall. To guarantee the voters wrath. To give them all the cover they could want.
So they are content to bide their time and watch us make every conceivable mistake. They think they are going to increase their numbers in the next election, not pay a price, and we are doing everything we can to encourage them in that belief. Which is the reason Joe can hold healthcare hostage. Because we're so busy burning our bridges we cannot do without him.
There was a maxim in business that when you have a key man in an organization, you fire him.—The point being, an enterprise cannot depend on a single person for its success or failure, to be in a position to hold everything else hostage; any manager who allows it to is a failed leader.
Joe has been in that position all year. The leadership has known it. The leadership has failed.
My point was that not only is punishing Lieberman undemocratic, pinning all our hopes on Joe and giving 40 percent of the Senate a pass is, and always has been, stupid.
I completely agree. I have always commented that it's hypocritical in the extreme for castigating Party members who follow their conscience and their duties to their constituents rather than Party ideology.
That type of "Party be damned!!" attitude is what *I* look for in a candidate..
There was a maxim in business that when you have a key man in an organization, you fire him.
Although I see the logic of the idea, I would hate to be that lynch pin!! :D
You haven't said anything here that I haven't been saying since 2005...
Republicans are successful because, overall, they have discipline.
The very strength of the Democratic Party (diversity, etc etc) is not well suited for leadership roles. Especially at such a time where we are fighting such an unconventional war.
Michale....
nypoet22,
michale, when you're right you're right, not nearly as often as you think you're right, but this time i think you're right.
You must admit, I am right a lot more often than ya'all would like.. :D
Michale....
As someone who used to work in the insurance industry, here is why insurers are salivating:
1. The bill makes NOT having healthcare insurance illegal (30 million new customers)
2. No competition is being introduced (they maintain their monopoly positions and are able to control price)
3. Insurance companies can't deny anyone coverage, but it doesn't say they can't charge them absurd amounts of money for it
4. Ditto for dropping people. You don't have to drop them if you just raise their rates so high they can't afford it.
In a sense, the people who now can't afford health insurance will still not be able to afford it. But now it will be illegal for them not to have it.
Not only is this bad for the country, but I feel once people find out what a complete farce this is, it will be politically bad for Democrats.
-David
David,
IE "DUNSELCARE"
The term used by midshipmen at Starfleet Academy to describe a part serving no useful purpose.
Michale.....
It's worse than that, now, Michale. It's actually a bill that does little more than hand over more control to the insurance industry.
I'm more than happy to stand on principle. The principle I've stood by all along is that any reform has to be a bill that helps the uninsured, works to keep costs reasonable through competition, and doesn't simply hand more money and more control over to private industries (i.e. "trickle down continued")
Even up until Lieberman, this bill did some of this. But post-Lieberman, there's nothing left.
So I don't see why anyone with any principles (other than political) would vote for this.
Listening to Sherrod Brown, who I thought had some principles, try to defend this was painful. You could tell he was struggling to say that there was still anything good left in it.
Hell, I'll even call it DUNSELCARE now because that's as good a name as any for this steaming pile of crap.
-David
p.s. Though I prefer "steaming pile of crap". :)
Hell, I'll even call it DUNSELCARE now
Don't tease me.. :D
p.s. Though I prefer "steaming pile of crap". :)
CrapCare??? :D
But I agree with you. DunselCare was an appropriate moniker back when the legislation wasn't useful, but did no harm.
What we're looking at now is something that will actively screw over 30 million MORE Americans.
Of course the Insurance Companies are salivating at CrapCare. It will force EVERYONE to get Health Insurance, there are many loopholes on the pre-existing conditions issue and there are absolutely NO price controls. Insurance Companies can charge whatever they wish.
So, yes.. Insurance will have to cover pre-existing conditions. But they can charge whatever they want in effect making it too expensive to obtain..
I think CrapCare is perfectly appropriate.
Vindication, thy name is Michale. :D
Michale.....
There really is only one question for Obama, or any Democrat for that matter: Is there anything you believe in strongly enough, that you will not compromise on? If so, what is it?
Ramsgate,
"Welcome to the party, pal!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D Don't worry... You get used to it. :D
Anyways, I completely agree with what you are saying. In fact, I said as much a few weeks back.
"Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther!"
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT
It appears that Democrats simply cannot draw a bright line in the sand and hold that line.
"You cross THIS line, you die! OK.. You cross THIS line, you die!! Cross THIS line, you die!! Fine, you knock on my door, I not coming out. Nyyyaaaaa"
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET
Welcome to the group.. :D
Michale.....