Snap Speech Reactions
OK, as usual, I'm sitting down to write this without really dipping into the oceans of ink (and electrons) that are being spilled right now by other pundits, so that my reactions to both the "State Of The Union" speech and the Republican response are untainted by either groupthink or the herd mentality. So there's a very good chance (as always) that what I thought will be a long way away from what others think (on both sides of the aisle). And, as usual, I'll be expounding on the speech in a rather random, stream-of-consciousness manner (because it is late, and my brain is numb from an hour and a half of political oratory). Just to warn everyone, up front.
One thing I've got to point out, too (before we get started), for anyone interested in some history about the State Of The Union speech -- the Washington Post has a wonderful reprint of an article from their archives up on their site right now. It was written in response to the news that Woodrow Wilson would be giving an actual speech (which hadn't been done in 112 years) to a joint session of Congress. It is absolutely fascinating look (it's a fairly long) into the politics of the time, right down to the forms of address used ("fellow Americans" is sneered at as being too Frenchified, believe it or not, as Republicans in the South were still fans of "gentlemen" as an all-encompassing form of address). In any case, check it out, fellow history buffs, as it's a great read that shows the origins of all the modern State Of The Union hoopla. OK, enough history, let's get on with what happened this evening.
President Obama spoke for a long time tonight. That, at least, we can all agree upon, right? The speech clocked in at around 65 minutes, when presidents routinely try to get the whole thing in under an hour. There were parts of Obama's speech that I thought were too long, and a lot of parts I thought were too short and wanted to hear more on. I suppose I'm beginning at the end, but this led to what seemed an awfully abrupt finish to the speech, where there was very little in the way of a conclusion or a rousing "bring it all back home" sort of big finish of any sort. Which, as State Of The Union speeches go, is fairly unusual -- presidents (including Obama) usually build for the final five (or even ten) minutes to a swelling crescendo that gets the crowd on their feet and wakes up the guys in the corner who have fallen asleep. That really didn't happen this time around.
Overall, I thought the speech was oversold by the White House (before the fact). This is a fairly common complain with State Of The Union speeches, so I'm sure I won't be the only one to point this out. But from the build-up beforehand, I expected a speech that would be unabashedly populist, and hit strongly on the theme of inequality. Obama did raise the issue, and did spend some time talking about it, but the biggest initiative he had on the subject was the one he had leaked beforehand (raising minimum wage for federal workers). The other theme the speech was supposed to have was Obama striking out on his own because Congress refused to act. More on this in a moment.
This isn't completely fair to Obama, I realize. The position he finds himself in is a tough one -- starting the sixth year of his presidency after going through a period when his approval numbers hit the lowest point he's yet seen, with a hostile House of Representatives and with the midterm elections looming off in the distance. That's a lot of headwind, to put it mildly.
Overall, I did think Obama did a great job of defending (and touting) his own successes. The most striking of these was the way he talked about turning the auto industry around. Obama mentioned this more than once, but in a very casual way: "...when we rescued the auto industry..." and "...as the auto industry came roaring back," almost as what actors call "asides," when talking about other issues. [Note: I don't have a transcript of the speech in front of me, so all quotes used herein are from my hastily-scribbled notes and may not be word-for-word accurate.] I thought this was a much more powerful way to remind Americans of a success, more so than trying for a big applause line from Democrats.
As far as those applause lines went, I thought the middle parts of the speech flowed much better than Obama's opening and his closing. In the first few minutes of the speech, Obama seemed almost to be rushing (which, given the length, is now understandable), but by doing so he stepped on some lines that should have gotten rousing ovations (at least, from his side of the aisle). Perhaps this was by design, as you have to wonder whether presidents themselves get tired of the whole "this side stands up and applauds, then the other side has their turn" aspect to these speeches. Who knows?
One other overall thing, then I'll have a look through all my individual notes. The president was obviously conscious of how his "I'm going to use executive power if you clowns won't act" theme was going to be received by Republicans. The first couple of times he stated he'd be acting on his own, it actually highlighted Republican priorities. Don't believe me? The first one I noticed (the first specific one -- this was after Obama raised the subject in a general way) was when Obama promised to cut regulations and "streamline" the way businesses interact with the government. This is a longstanding Republican issue, folks. He followed this up a few minutes later with a promise to "cut red tape" for the creation of new natural gas power plants -- again, hitting a Republican theme of "too much government interference." He did, on the third issue he raised, give a nod to Democrats, when he promised to protect natural lands (I'm assuming this means he'll be creating new National Monuments, which doesn't need congressional approval, as National Parks do). But two out of the first three were nods to the other side of the aisle. Will he get any credit for this from Republicans? Doubtful, which is why I point it out now.
OK, reading through my speech notes, Obama did have some good lines, the first of which was really "we should focus on creating new jobs, and not new crises" (referencing how government shutdowns and brinksmanship pleases nobody). Obama hit his main theme of opportunity and income inequality early, which he would return to several times during the rest of the speech. And he got some love from the room for bringing up both his wife's accomplishments and those of Biden's wife as well.
The best passage in the whole speech, I thought, was where he started off with "American success should depend not on an accident of birth," and then listed a few people who had reached powerful positions from lowly beginnings. Perhaps because this was one of the only real human (and dramatic) moments of the evening, when he used none other than John Boehner as an example, calling him "the son of a barkeep" who had become Speaker of the House. Boehner was visibly surprised, but reacted well (with both a thumbs-up gesture and then a salute). The rest of the night, of course, Boehner went from looking like he was bored to tears or perhaps sucking on a pickle -- but this is normal for any opposition leader sitting behind a president in this setting, I should add in all fairness.
From this moment of bonhomie, Obama pivoted right to the meat of the speech -- the "laundry list." Of course, faced with a divided Congress, he couldn't really realistically "swing for the fences" on much of anything with the possible exception of immigration reform. So (to continue the metaphor), he contented himself with "playing small ball." He zeroed in on a few things that he is quite obviously preparing to act alone on, and gave his justification for each. This part of the speech bores many commentators, but I found it to be workable and realistic this year. I also (as I mentioned) thought the middle section was where Obama truly hit his stride as an orator, with a flowing cadence and delivery.
Obama spoke strongly about climate change ("The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact."), but didn't really offer up any new proposals on the issue. Whether this will be enough for environmentalists or not is probably going to have to wait until after the White House announces the final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, that's my best guess.
There was one new proposal involving Joe Biden on reforming job training, which we'll also have to see details on to accurately judge. Once again, though, this is a Republican priority (they've been pushing to simplify the number of federal agencies which do job training and job help for a while now).
Obama trotted out some personal stories during the speech, as all presidents are wont to do, and I thought the best one was the letter from the unemployed person, which ended with the heartfelt plea "Please give us this chance," which was well-received in the chamber.
Obama spoke on other subjects (education, high tech, retirement, voting rights, gun violence) without really offering up much in the way of meat. He did get a rousing response from Democrats when he spoke about women, and how they deserve equal pay. In fact, this was another one of the high points of the speech, as he gave a succinct list of why he (and Democrats) were fighting for America's women, instead of fighting a war against them. This had a good line in it about workplace practices "that belong in an episode of Mad Men" and concluded "when women succeed, America succeeds."
Raising the minimum wage for federal workers was wildly popular with Democrats, and Obama framed the issue about as perfectly as he possibly could: "if you cook our troops' meals or wash their dishes, you should not have to live in poverty." Excellent imagery, I have to say. But even in the minimum wage section of the speech, Obama shied away from full-throated populism and certainly didn't get into any "class warfare" arguments. He almost taunted Republicans on the minimum wage (which is shaping up to be one of the biggest Democratic issues in the midterm campaigns) with: "Join the rest of the country -- Give America a raise!"
Speaking of good framing, while he never actually used the term, Obama's defense of Obamacare was downright brilliant, with the example of the woman who got insured at the start of the month, and then was in surgery before the first week in January was out. This personalized the issue in a way that simply was not possible before the start of the actual benefits, and was handled perfectly, I thought. The whole Obamacare section of the speech was a pretty good defense of the actual facts of Obamacare, and ended with a rousing line (at least for Democrats): "the American people are not interested in fighting old battles -- let's not have another 40-plus votes" to kill Obamacare. And his line about "call your mother" got a laugh and took the edge off, at the very end.
I thought the weakest part of the speech was the entire passage on foreign policy, which began and ended with an "everyone loves the troops" moment. Of course, these both got perhaps the biggest standing ovations of the night, as they were designed to. But I thought the entire bit was too long and didn't have much new in it at all, unless you count Obama's promises to reform how he uses drones and how he spies on people.
Plenty of groups from Obama's Democratic base got very short shrift in this speech (gay rights were only briefly alluded to, when Obama touched upon the Olympics, for instance). This will, no doubt, be pointed out in greater detail in the coming days. And, as I mentioned before, there was almost no sweeping conclusion at the end to rouse the crowd.
All in all, the speech was less than I expected, and wasn't delivered nearly as well as Obama has proved he can orate in the past. So I was a little disappointed in the speech on style, and a little disappointed on the speech (although less so, given the concrete limits Obama faces) in terms of substance. If I was grading it, I think I'd give it a B-minus -- or perhaps a B, if I was in a good mood -- on both style and substance.
As for the Republican response, what the heck was that? "Let's get a woman to speak, because we seem to have a rather large problem with women," you can hear the Republican leadership muse, almost. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers gave a bizarre response to Obama's speech, in which she used roughly half the time to talk about her and her family. She used precisely zero amount of the time to talk about what policies or ideas Republicans were for. I mean, I could not come up with a more substance-free speech if I tried, I think.
To be scrupulously fair, responses to the State Of The Union speech are always tough, because you have no idea what the president is going to say. So you can't take his argument apart piece by piece, because you don't know in advance what the pieces are going to say. Even so, there was nothing stopping the Republicans from giving a rousing defense of their own list of priorities, since that wouldn't change no matter what Obama said. They missed their opportunity to do so. Instead, we were informed that Cathy McMorris Rodgers once worked at a McDonald's, and that she enjoyed the 4-H club as a child. She said at one point "Republicans have plans," but then followed this sweeping statement up with... nothing. Not a single plan was detailed in any way, shape, or form. Her delivery was pretty breathy, and I would rate it (charitably) as "not ready for prime time" (case in point, pronouncing "Brooklyn" as "Brookland"). She ended with a prayer in which she seemed to be trying to use the word "God" as many times in one passage as she humanly could.
All in all, a pretty forgettable experience. Grading her the same way I graded Obama, I'd give her a C-minus for style and a clear F (or, charitably, an "incomplete") on substance.
OK, that's it for snap judgments, folks. By tomorrow, we'll all see what others thought of tonight's speechifying, won't we?
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Minor program notes:
In case you missed it, I posted an RIP earlier today for Pete Seeger...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/01/28/a-time-to-be-born-a-time-to-die/
Also, I went back and answered comments from Monday and Friday, as well.
That's it... I'm done for the evening!
-CW
I thought it was a good speech. I liked the abrupt ending. And, the best part, by far, was the very long - and, deservedly so, tribute to the troop.
Oh, one more thing that struck me about this speech that was different from the others, I think ... the focus on 'community organizing' and citizens, mayors and governors taking things into their own hands as Washington becomes ever more dysfunctional.
For some reason, it all reminded me of Sarah Palin and her constant mocking of the 'community organizer and suggested a kind of irony - or would that be poetic justice? - when you consider who and what - cough ...congressional Republicans ... cough - has caused the dysfunction in the first place which has led to the emphasis on community organizing. It made me smile.
LizM -
Good point on the mayors and governors thing. Others are pointing this out elsewhere, so I have to tip my hat to you for bringing it up.
As for the troops thing, the ending was pretty good, I have to admit. What stood out for me was "on his tenth tour of duty".... But what I found long was the whole foreign policy bit as a whole. But then, as others have pointed out, this is also an area where he will largely be able to act without Congress involved at all. Which is a good point.
-CW
One more thing...
TheStig posted a hilarious reaction to the speech, on another thread:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/01/27/obama-bouncing-back/#comment-45259
I especially liked "will be parodied on SNL"...
Heh.
-CW
Also, I went back and answered comments from Monday and Friday, as well.
And I answered your answers. :D
I'll get to the meat of your snap reactions in a moment. It's something I need to let percolate for a while.. : D
Michale
Let's look past the rosy proclamations and study the cold hard facts..
Raising the minimum wage for Federal workers.
It sounds nice and pretty but, as usual, the devil is in the details..
90% of workers in Federal Contracts already make over $10.10 p/h. At BEST, this raise will only affect about 200,000 people. Further, this doesn't apply to Federal Workers on contracts that have already been done, it only applies to workers on NEW CONTRACTS. That reduces the 200K to half that. 100,000 people..
AND they won't even GET that raise until 2015...
So, big woop-dee-doo on that raise. Sounds good in a speech. But the reality is far FAR different..
Cutting rules and regulations for highway programs..
Again, that sounds REALLY good in a speech.. And it would be an AWESOME thing....
IF....
If it were actually rules and regulations that were holding up those highway programs..
But it isn't.. What is holding up those highway programs is lack of money. Because Obama and the Democrats have not brought back this economy..
So, Obama can eliminate all the rules and regulations he wants to..
Guess what?? Those highway programs will STILL be held up..
So, chalk up another big PPPPPFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTT big woop-dee-doo....
As far as Obama's nod to his Auto Company "success".. Is that the same "success" that has left the taxpayers on the hook for BILLIONS of dollars??
Gods know, we don't need more "successes" like that, eh!
As far as Obama's claim that 9 million people have signed up for insurance... How many of those 9 million were FORCED to sign up for TrainWreckCare because they LOST their insurance!? Their insurance that they liked! Their insurance that they wanted to keep! Their insurance that they were PROMISED they could keep!
Let's look at THOSE numbers shall we??
Obama lied. Pure and simple. Even worse, Obama lied to further a POLITICAL agenda. A political agenda that was a DETRIMENT to this country and her citizens..
No amount of rosy speech-ifying will erase that stain. Forever more, until the end of time, obamacare will be equated with The Lie Of The Year.. The Pinocchio Of The Year....
I think that takes care of the American Citizen's response to the SOTU...
Hmmmmmm... Have I forgotten anything?? It seems I left something un-addressed...
Michale
Oh yea.. THAT's right... :D
"The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact."
BBBWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Obama might as well have said
"The debate is settled. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west"
or
"The debate is settled. Evolution is a fact."
NO ONE is arguing that Climate Change is not a fact.
Of COURSE there is Climate Change. There has been Climate Change for BILLIONS of years...
Only a MORON would believe that the debate is about whether the climate is changing or not...
Obama also said
"We have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods."
Which brings up what the REAL debate is..
No one denies that the climate is changing. That is not the debate.
I will even go so far as to concede, for the sake of the argument, that humankind MIGHT have had some influence on that change. I'll conditionally concede that because THAT is not the debate...
Would ya'all like to know what the REAL debate is, ladies and gentlemen??
Well, I am glad you asked..
The REAL debate is this:
Is there an imminent, all-life-on-earth, life threatening catastrophe?
THAT is what the debate is all about..
And THAT question is not settled.. It's not even CLOSE to being settled. It's not even in the same SOLAR SYSTEM as "being settled" is...
As our very own Michty (where has he been anyways!??) is fond of saying, "If there is even a >.1 percent chance of an imminent life-ending catastrophe, isn't it logical to take steps to prevent it??"
And, all things being equal, Michty would be right. You out there Michty?? Did ya hear that?? I said you were right.. :D
But things are NOT equal. Because the steps that the Left wants to take to prevent this .1% possibility would decimate the world's economy...
Put another way. Let's say you have a patient who has a .1% chance of dying from an extremity infection. Would it be wise for a doctor to cut off that person's arms and legs to prevent the possibility of a deadly extremity infection??
Of course, it wouldn't.. It would be utterly stoopid..
Which pretty much describes the hysterical Left's response to "climate change"... S-T-O-O-P-I-D
So... To sum up..
Is the climate changing?
Of course it is.. Has been for billions of years..
Is humankind responsible for that changing climate?
Possibly. Logic and common sense would argue against it, but it's possible.
Is there a population ending imminent catastrophe?
There is very little factual evidence to support that claim and a BUTTLOAD of evidence that refutes it..
THAT is the debate people..
And the facts indicate that the Left is on the LOSING side of that debate.
Michale
Shall we tackle Obama's ...
"Today, Women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it's an embarrassment."
... statement??
Yea, noble and politically correct and all that jazz...
Yet, it cannot be reconciled with the fact that the median salary for men in Obama's White House is 70,000 per year and the median salary for women in Obama's White House is 61,000 per year...
That's our POTUS..
A DO-AS-I-SAY-NOT-AS-I-DO kinda guy...
As I am wont to say to Democrats.. Why don'tcha clean YOUR OWN house first and THEN come preaching to the rest of us...
Michale
All I gotta say is I bet that Obama is grateful that a snowstorm hit North Florida/South Georgia today! :D
Michale
Ted Cruz: The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama
In the nation's history, there is simply no precedent for an American president so wantonly ignoring federal law.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308.html
THAT should have been the GOP Response to Obama's SOTU....
THAT, more than ever, is going to be Obama's legacy..
An Imperial Presidency that would give Richard Nixon a wet dream...
Michale
Chris,
For me, the foreign policy part has always been the most interesting part of these speeches, not surprisingly. And, those parts have never been long enough. Heh.
I thought President Obama was sufficiently strong when he warned Senator Menendez and buddies in the "no one supports Israel more than I do" club that he will veto any bill authorizing new Iran sanctions if negotiations fail. Because, frankly, that is an infinitely stupid bill.
I also thought Obama gave very short shrift to the exceedingly important rebalancing of the US to the Asia Pacific region or Asia Pacific Pivot, especially in view of the developing new 'Cold War' there in which the US has a pivotal role to play in reducing conflict and preventing an actual hot war.
Like you, "the tenth tour of duty" blew me away! I am aware of the multiple troop deployments that have become the norm since 2001 but that phrase was shocking, nevertheless.
Speaking of which, I think the president could have spent more time talking about the troops and veterans and the difficult challenges they and their families must face on a daily basis AFTER they return home from the battlefield, let alone while they are overseas.
It was just a speech but I thought it might rank right up there with some of the best.
I thought President Obama was sufficiently strong when he warned Senator Menendez and buddies in the "no one supports Israel more than I do" club that he will veto any bill authorizing new Iran sanctions if negotiations fail.
Obama claims to the BEST Israel supporter yet claims that he will veto legislation that prevents Israel's BIGGEST enemy from acquiring nukes that said enemy will USE on Israel..
Seems to be to be quite the conflict of statements, eh?? :D
Michale
Michale,
The Obama/Biden administration is the strongest supporter, ally and friend that the state of Israel has ever known.
That cannot be disputed.
And, no, there is no conflict of statements - the conflict resides in the hearts and minds of those in Congress who mistakenly believe that they are helping Israel by passing legislation to impose new sanctions if negotiations fail.
Michale,
Obama claims to the BEST Israel supporter yet claims that he will veto legislation that prevents Israel's BIGGEST enemy from acquiring nukes that said enemy will USE on Israel..
In reality, the legislation that President Obama has rightly promised to veto should it ever appear on his desk - and I don't think it will - may actually ENABLE the hardliners in Iran to win the day and that is most definitely not in Israel's interests.
The legislation you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and, in fact, the opposite is true of this legislation at this time.
That is not to say that at some point, if Iran fails to meet its obligations under the initial agreement with P5+1 or fails to reach a comprehensive agreement to limit its nuclear program to peaceful purposes, that legislation imposing new sanctions on Iran won't be a necessity.
The point here is that now is most decidedly NOT the time for this legislation.
Ultimately I think Obama will be seen by history as a man who held things together at a point in time when Americans, indeed, the world, were having to come to terms with the need for wrenching change. (He will also be seen as a grown-up surrounded by hysterical and horrible repubs, but I digress.)
Obama will not be seen as a change agent himself, because he isn't one.
People resist change. People who will lose anything from change, resist it even more. But change is coming because it has to. And as we have seen many times, change happens suddenly, preceded by years of resistance, debate, sometimes violence, and stalemate. Think of Gay marriage. Or this movement to decriminalize Marijuana. Women's suffrage. Etc.
Right now the question on the table is "do we shape the world to benefit all people?" or "do we shape the world to benefit a few?".
It's a simple question with profound implications. Practically every political decision or idea or action or lack of action supports one or the other. Mostly, currently, supports the "benefitting a few" side.
The 1% doesn't want people to go there because it calls into question everything about their senses of entitlement and worth.
The elites that serve them have been inculcated into beliefs that support the notions of 1% superiority and questioning those beliefs begets more questions which inevitably leads them to the realization that they are wrong.
Obama is not prepared to admit that yet. But, because he neither an idiot nor a liar, he knows things are out of balance, moving in the wrong direction, etc. His instincts, I believe, are to try to fix the system without changing it's basic structure. Most high level Dems are on that page as well. So they will suggest things that will staunch some wounds for a time but won't really fix things. Yet.
Obama may be exactly what has been needed. Basically he's buying America time. If things are semi-stable we can consider change more thoughtfully and perhaps implement it more intelligently. If everything blows up then change will come but it will probably be violent, hysterical and unstable.
I don't think Obama would see it the way I do, naturally, he isn't deliberately acting as a stabilizer versus change agent. He won't see it that way because he doesn't recognize himself as a product of the elite status quo point of view. He may come to that realization eventually, probably long after 2016, and probably as a result of whatever upheavals occur and their manner of occurrence.
A long way of saying that expecting BIG, BOLD from Obama, in a SOTU or anywhere else, is a recipe for disappointment. It's not who he is or what he does.
Paula,
That's a very interesting take but I don't think I see the overall as you do.
And, beyond that, Obamacare was pretty BIG and BOLD, don't you think?
Personally, I don't see the problem with the legislation...
All it says to IRAN is, "If you renege on your agreements, we are going to frak you up"...
As long as IRAN operates in good faith, there won't be any repercussions.
What's the problem with that??
Michale
Personally, I don't see the problem with the legislation...
All it says to IRAN is, "If you renege on your agreements, we are going to frak you up"...
As long as IRAN operates in good faith, there won't be any repercussions.
What's the problem with that??
Michale
DOH!!!
Double tap!! :D
Michale
Liz, what you are referring to is appeasement..
It's the same, "we better give in or the bad guys will get REALLY mad" mentality..
And it NEVER ends well...
If history has taught us anything it has taught us that appeasement begets MORE war and MORE suffering and MORE death than standing firm EVER will...
"Trust. But verify"
-Ronald Reagan
To that, I would add.. "And make damn sure the bad guys know what will happen if they betray the trust"
That is ALL that the current legislation does..
And no one should have a problem with that..
Michale
Michale,
Liz, what you are referring to is appeasement..
I resemble that remark.
Obama is not prepared to admit that yet. But, because he neither an idiot nor a liar, he knows things are out of balance, moving in the wrong direction, etc.
Apparently, you are not up on current events. Obama is a bigger liar than Bush EVER was.
Lie Of The Year Award??
Pinocchio Of The Year Award??
Any of these ringing any bells??
Obama's complete lies and utter (by your own standards) incompetence is well-documented..
Michale
Apparently, you are not up on current events. Obama is a bigger liar than Bush EVER was.
Let me amend that.
I honestly don't believe that just because someone tells a lie or two does not make them a "liar"... Even when someone tells lie after lie after lie after lie, as Obama has done, it's still not factually accurate to call someone "a liar"...
So let me amend that to say that Obama is a politician who is pre-disposed to lie rather than to tell the truth..
Granted saying "politician" and "lie" is somewhat redundant but... Well, there you have it..
Michale
Elizabeth (17): Obamacare is the perfect example of what I mean. Obamacare seeks to soften and reduce the problems created by our previous healthcare non-system by making changes within that existing structure.
BIG and BOLD would have been single-payer.
Obamacare is a definite step in the right direction and deserves credit for what I manages to do, no question about that. But it was the least disruptive approach to a needed change. And probably, in the end, that was an effective way since so much of the public is either ignorant about the way the healthcare system worked, or is actively misinformed a la Michale. So you make the smaller changes, weather the hysterical or calculatedly negative reactions, and let reality sink in. As we're seeing, approval of the law is going up as people begin to experience its consequences in real life. Over time bigger changes may be possible because people will have more trust in outcomes.
In addition, Obamacare is a good example of change that had to happen. But think about how long it took -- and about how the Clinton effort was absolutely stalled. It took 20 more years of relentless piling up of personal tragedies, financial disasters, stress, fear etc. by lots of Americans before the problem could be addressed at all.
Other changes are going to be required -- they won't be optional. Climate change, fossil fuel limitations, income inequality, stagnating income and wages and job market, higher education expenses and crippling student loan debt -- all are reaching a tipping point. None can be addressed by tweaks, they require looking at the world through new eyes instead of reflexively reaching for what used to work.
I don't see Obama as being someone who will spearhead new responses to new problems. I think he will try to improve old responses and will still see the problems through the old lenses. Others will do the imagining, will lay the groundwork, will change minds.
I think you just made the argument that Obamacare was BIG and BOLD.
Single payer would not have come even close to passing.
Over time bigger changes may be possible because people will have more trust in outcomes.
Yea, the train wreck that was the obamacare rollout SURELY engendered trust in future Democrat adventures...
NOT......
:D
Michale
Elizabeth (26): No, Obamacare was prudent, relatively conservative, pragmatic and acceptable to the Insurance Industry. It's all relative, of course. Single Payer would not have passed, we assume. It never got an airing so that remains an assumption. Had it gotten an airing it might have caused changes in Obamacare - we can't know.
I'm not discounting the significance or achievement of Obamacare I'm just saying that it DID pass because it rocked the boat less than other, arguably better, solutions. Generally speaking I'd say anything likely to pass in Washington is, by nature, NOT big and bold. Washington allows things to happen only after pressure has become irresistible, and then it passes the least disruptive version of whatever.
Paula,
It seems we may differ in how we define BIG and BOLD.
I'm looking at it from a historical perspective, understanding how difficult it has been to make changes to the US healthcare system.
I agree with you that the Affordable Care Act is only a step, perhaps even a small step, along the way toward improving the American healthcare system and reducing the costs of healthcare.
However, the passing and implementation of this piece of legislation is a big and bold event and could be an important inflection point in history when it comes to how the healthcare is further improved in the future.
Elizabeth (29) -- OK, I'll give you BIG. It is certainly big in that something was desperately needed and nothing previously had succeeded. But BOLD -- one definition of which is "daring action or initiative" I don't see. There is nothing BOLD about riding an existing tide. There is nothing BOLD about doing something a majority of people want done and need done. Responsible, yes. Bold, no.
Fair enough, Paula.
We agree to disagree on whether Obamacare was a bold effort in the sense of how its implementation may affect the future of healthcare in the US.
Elizabeth: (31)
Works for me!
Excellent!
There is nothing BOLD about doing something a majority of people want done and need done.
While it's true that the majority of the American people wanted something done about the high cost of health care, it's ALSO true that the majority of American people were emphatically clear..
obamacare WASN'T it and they did NOT want it
So, please. Don't play the martyr card and claim that Obama and the Democrats did what they did for the American people.
Obama and the Democrats did what they did for Obama and the Democrats.
Period...
And, as usual, they screwed over the American people in the process...
Let's try to stick to the facts here, K?? :D
Michale
Michael,
As always you are repeating GOP misrepresentations about Obamacare. The majority of people did not want Obamacare. True. The majority of people wanted something stronger. The majority of people were not against Obamacare. They didn't want to settle for just Obamacare. The provisions of Obamacare were almost exclusively GOP initiatives. The carefully manufactured outrage over Obamacare took years for the GOP to manufacture and have never really extended beyond the core 30% of GOP Obama Haters. Obamacare is, and always has been, about helping the American people. Its the GOP opposition that has never been about anything but the GOP. Even the millions you always claim "lost their insurance" because of ACA were helped by Obamacare. They "lost" substandard policies that were substandard because they're effectively worthless. Preventing people from being cheated is helping them. Whether they'd prefer to continue buying snake-oil or not.
LewDan (35) Yep, yep, yep! Well said!
LD,
Oh please... Give me a break.
There was no "manufactured" outrage over TrainWreckCare..
MILLIONS of people LOST their insurance plans. You know.. The ones that Obama PROMISED they could keep.
"PERIOD!!"
-President Obama
The only "manufacture" here is the manufactured fantasy that Obama actually did good..
They "lost" substandard policies that were substandard because they're effectively worthless.
Even IF that were true, it is completely and utterly irrelevant...
The people who HAD those policies, LIKED those policies..
And Obama PROMISED that if the people liked their policies they could keep their policies.
"PERIOD!!"
-President Obama
Basically you are saying that people are ignorant and King Obama knows what's best for them..
Nice attitude.. :D
Michale
Obamacare’s Unpopularity Rises Among Uninsured
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-january-2014/
"Manufactured" outrage, my ass..
People are pissed. REALLY pissed...
Absolutely NOTHING manufactured about it...
Michale
"Look at the numbers," says the reporter of two employees. "Jeff and Dave used to have a $1,250 deductible. Since Obamacare went into effect, it's now jumped 60 percent to $2,000. That's nothing compared to Brian, Kristi, and Judy who have kids. they are going to pay twice that, four grand." The reporter adds that co-pays are being increased, too.
"I don't know how President Obama thinks he's helping us because we can't afford this, we can't afford to pay these co-pays, to pay these deductibles on what we're making," says one of the workers.
Another worker adds, "They call it the affordable health plan. There's nothing affordable about it. I can't afford it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UuA2_P-m4Sk
Manufactured outrage???
I think not..
There is absolutely NOTHING "affordable" about the Affordable Care Act..
Right there off the bat, obamacare is an epic FAIL...
Still waiting for the slew of Happy Happy Joy Joy stories ya'all promised were right around the corner...
Michale
And, in the ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST column, Rep. Henry "There IS Climate Change!! There REALLY IS!!!" Waxman (D-CA) announced his retirement and will not seek re-election for his seat..
I guess Dems aren't too keen on the idea that they might take the House...
Michale
Personally as a one time semi-pro gambler/poker player I have much respect for "snap judgements". Mr.O. is doing as well as he has been allowed to do with all the obstruction.
Ameri...
Personally as a one time semi-pro gambler/poker player I have much respect for "snap judgements". Mr.O. is doing as well as he has been allowed to do with all the obstruction.
Let me turn that around..
President Bush did as well as he had been allowed to do with all the obstruction.
Would you agree with that statement??
If not, why not??
Michale
Agree with paula on this one. Obamacare is certainly big, and a few elements of it are necessary. however, it is anything but bold. Insurance has to sell to everyone, and in exchange everyone has to buy insurance. Seems like the bronze plan to me.
It shows the bare minimum of courage, just as it provides the bare minimum of coverage...
JL
Michale
President Bush did as well as he had been allowed to do with all the obstruction.
What obstruction?,that bad actor got everything he asked for full stop. Perhaps you were asleep in 2003 when your man got to spend American blood and treasure in a family feud with unlamented Hussein?
As I know you love movies,I'd like to suggest you watch Seven Days in May. A classic for those of us of a liberal bent.
Michale [11] -
I had already read the Ted Cruz piece, and in fact was going to cite the link to you in a comment, on a different thread. Cruz, agree with him or not, is doing exactly what I was talking about earlier over Obama's executive actions. It's not "executive orders" that make the logical and anti-Obama argument, it is in fact "here's what Obama has done without Congress's approval, when by law he should have had it."
Like I said, I don't agree with the Cruz argument, but at least it is framed properly -- the same way lefty arguments against Bush were framed (that "signing statements" were an unconstitutional usurpation of congressional powers).
So while not agreeing with the argument, I do think Cruz is at least making a rational case for his position.
LizM [12] -
Foreign policy... you do realize there's a petition up on the White House site (with 130,000+ signatures) demanding the repatriation of Justin Bieber, do you not?
Heh.
And to keep Michale happy:
Now, now, the Canadian Government has apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions!
-South Park, "Bigger, Longer, And Uncut"
Seriously, though, I was also impressed that Obama issued a veto threat during the speech, and should have pointed it out in this column. I'm with you on that one.
Paula [16] -
That is an interesting comment. Have you read the New Yorker piece on Obama? It is an interesting view of how he sees Washington, and does fit in a bit with what you're saying. I can find you the link if you don't know what article I'm talking about...
Michale [19] -
You're ignoring the fact Obama said exactly that in his speech. "If we don't get a treaty, I'll be the first to call for strong new sanctions" (or something very close to that, doing that from memory).
All Obama is doing is asking for time to attempt diplomacy. Which the bill actually does as well -- none of the sanctions would take place unless a treaty doesn't appear. So what's the big problem? You think Congress can't pass exactly the same bill in a few months if needed?
Paula [25] -
I have a question for you. Do you think Hillary (should she win in 2016) would be any better at the "big and bold" stuff? I'm not being facetious, I've been thinking about Hillary for a few weeks now and am trying to sort out my own thoughts on her.
As for Obamacare, I would frame it slightly differently. Obama was big and bold (BIG and bold? Sorry, couldn't resist) in pushing the issue all the way through to completion. That had been the culmination of a century-long effort, in fact, and his own advisors were telling him to bail on the effort at several points.
But, having said that, I agree completely with your assessment of what Obamacare contains. You are right -- single payer (or even "the public option") would have been a lot bigger and a lot bolder.
LizM [26] -
Good point about what was possible to pass. Is going big and bold -- and failing -- better than going more modest and achieving? That's an old argument, usually put in "incrementalism vs. purity" language.
But the public option might have passed, if it weren't for weenies like Max Baucus.
LizM [29] -
This is exactly what I was trying to say to Paula in answer to [25] above. Passing something was indeed big and bold, even if what passed wasn't so big and wasn't so bold.
Lew Dan [35] -
I agree with Paula. Well said. The people had to settle for Obamacare, which if the people were in charge would have been a lot bigger and a lot bolder.
Michale [40] -
I'll bet you a hundred billion quatloos, right here and now, that Waxman's seat stays in Democratic hands. There's no partisan spin over a retirement when it is an absolutely safe district, sorry.
Americulchie [41] -
Your last sentence is the best single sentence to sum up the speech I've yet read. Excellent way to put it!
Michale [42] -
What obstruction? Dems gave Bush just about everything he wanted in Congress, with the possible exception of the last two years. I mean, they vocally bitched about Bush's proposals, but they all passed Congress. So what obstruction are you talking about?
Whew! Made it to the end!
-CW
Ameri,
As I know you love movies,I'd like to suggest you watch Seven Days in May. A classic for those of us of a liberal bent.
LOVED it..
But am more partial to FAIL SAFE...
I'll get to your "Bush Faced No Obstructionism" in a min, since CW is also operating under the same factual fallacy...
CW,
Foreign policy... you do realize there's a petition up on the White House site (with 130,000+ signatures) demanding the repatriation of Justin Bieber, do you not?
Good riddance to bad garbage...
I mean, HONESTLY.. What *IS* the attraction to people like Beiber/Lohan/Cyrus/Spears?? It's a sad commentary on our society that those types of low-life lusers have ANY fame at all..
Kardishian?? Claim to fame is a SEX TAPE fer chreest's sake!!??
Now, now, the Canadian Government has apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions!
Kudos on the quote/reference. But I LOVE Bryan Adams..
If Canada wants to apologize for ANYONE, it should be Celene Dion....
"Why?? Because that god-awful Celene Dion song made me want to smite myself!"
"Who is 'Celene Dion'??"
"Oh, some destitute lounge singer in Quebec and can we keep it that way, please!!"
-SUPERNATURAL, My Heart Will Go On
:D
All Obama is doing is asking for time to attempt diplomacy.
Then Obama should be ALL FOR the legislation!! Because it will show the scumbag Iranians that he and ALL of the American people are on the same page.
Obama should WELCOME the back-up of the legislation..
You yourself had stated that putting legislation in place, but delaying it until and unless the Iranians don't play fair, was a GOOD thing..
But, Obama is so narcissistic that the idea of someone actually giving him a leg up, a stronger bargaining position, is totally anathema to him...
In short, he would rather give Iran nuclear weapons than give Congress a win...
Whatta weenie...
So what's the big problem? You think Congress can't pass exactly the same bill in a few months if needed?
Why wait???
Oh that's right. Deny the GOP a "win" regardless of the fact that it means Iran will go nuclear...
It's called "Putting Party before Country" in case you were wondering...
I'll bet you a hundred billion quatloos, right here and now, that Waxman's seat stays in Democratic hands. There's no partisan spin over a retirement when it is an absolutely safe district, sorry.
A> It loses a HELLUVA lot of seniority..
B> It shows that even a veteran congresscritter like Waxman can see the writing on the wall...
C> It loses a HUGE proponent of the Human Caused Global Warming Yet Not ONE SINGLE Model/Prediction Has EVER Come To Pass theory... Which also indicates that Waxman concedes that Democrats are on the LOSING side of THAT theory as well..
It's a two-fer!!! :D
What obstruction? Dems gave Bush just about everything he wanted in Congress, with the possible exception of the last two years. I mean, they vocally bitched about Bush's proposals, but they all passed Congress. So what obstruction are you talking about?
You are, of course, referring to simple procedural obstruction. Yes, the Dems faltered at that. ONLY because of their incompetence..
Democrats were in the news nightly, demonizing, vilifying and castigating Bush at ever turn.. Remember Harry "The War Is Lost" Reid?? Remember all the accusations of "war criminal" and "dictator" and "Hitler"???
And THAT was just from CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS...
I could go on and on and on, but what would be the point? No one wants to acknowledge how they demonized Bush and vilified Bush, yet they give Obama a complete and utter PASS for doing things MUCH WORSE than Bush EVER did...
There are MANY ways to obstruct a POTUS in the faithful execution of his duties.. Democrats were incompetent in one arena, but they definitely made up for that in the MSM arena....
I don't expect anyone to concede the point, but it is a factual point nonetheless...
Michale
Chris (45)
Do you think Hillary (should she win in 2016) would be any better at the "big and bold" stuff? I'm not being facetious, I've been thinking about Hillary for a few weeks now and am trying to sort out my own thoughts on her.
At this point in time my inclination would be to say "no" Hillary will not be better at BIG and BOLD. I would like to feel differently and am open to her changing my mind but would be (pleasantly) surprised.
Or maybe I should be more specific a la the exchange with Elizabeth in that she may well be BIG, just not BOLD.
I think Hillary has shown incredible poise in the face of really despicable rightwing vilification (aided by plenty of media assistance). Her choosing to run for the Senate, serving successfully, and then serving as SOS -- the sheer grit it had to take to even try after the shit that had been slung her way -- I will always admire her for that. I think her popularity is largely a reflection of people (who aren't idiots) respecting that courage and determination.
I think she's fundamentally honest, very intelligent and good-intentioned. I don't think she really wants to run, though. I think she's feeling she has to run because she has a very good chance of being the first female President of the United States, and because, in the absence of any other compelling Dem, she feels it's her duty to keep republicans out of the Oval Office (since all the contenders are simply poisonous).
What Hillary has yet to display, however, is much ability to think outside of conventional wisdom.
If she does run I think she'll win (barring extremely unforeseen events OR sheer campaigning malpractice). If she wins, I'd predict she will be much like Obama. I think she will work very hard to make things better but not at making things different.
As I said in my first post, the question on the table is: do we shape the world to benefit everyone, or do we shape the world to benefit a few?
I think Hillary, like Obama, will try to make the-world-that-benefits-a-few a bit less difficult for everyone else, but I would be really surprised if she did things that would significantly shift the balance.
One of the most suggestive tells, to me, will be whether she expresses any grasp of the Paul Krugman/Dean Baker wing of Economics. Will she acknowledge that our economy is a deliberate construct that can be changed? Or will she continue to ignore (as does Obama and almost everyone in power, Pub or Dem) all those tweaks, rules, regs, carve-outs etc. that favor the top and hurt everyone else and operate on the belief that the economy like the weather, with "immutable laws" and subject to Acts of God instead of completely predictable outcomes? (Like the much-predicted 2008 crash that blindsided so many conventional finance and economic "luminaries" who blew off the warnings.)
I'd like to know her views on the Keystone Pipeline and the TPP. Will she think that the only way to create jobs is to coddle large corporations? Will she improve industrial oversight, staff up inspectors everywhere and enforce environmental laws? Does she believe the corporate sector is always more efficient and effective than the public sector, rather than more irresponsible, predatory and unaccountable? Where is she on privatization of prisons? Schools?
Will she exhibit any kind of forward-thinking vision that addresses climate change and the need to wean off fossil fuels? That's an area crying out for BIG and BOLD and if she could take that on she would secure a very special place in history.
If this escalating income inequality, high unemployment and 40-years and running income stagnation for the 99% isn't eased pretty soon, whoever is President is going to be up against some pretty big problems. And I don't think it will be possible to bail out Wall Street for a second time if we hit another significant bubble.
So it may be that her strength will be, so to speak, her strength(!) It may be that events will push her into doing or trying things she wouldn't otherwise have considered (like FDR). She might come to BIG and BOLD out of necessity. But I don't think she'll go there if its a matter of choice.
Paula,
I think she's feeling she has to run because she has a very good chance of being the first female President of the United States, and because, in the absence of any other compelling Dem (Elizabeth's emphasis), she feels it's her duty to keep republicans out of the Oval Office (since all the contenders are simply poisonous).
If Vice President Biden should decide to throw his hat into the ring and mount a third presidential campaign, would you consider him a compelling candidate?
If you are looking for a candidate who is ready, willing and able to make things different, then I'd suggest that your answer to this question should be a resounding YES!
Chris,
I don't really know much about Justin Bieber. But, the petition thing is a great idea. I think he's from Sweden.
Michale,
If Canada wants to apologize for ANYONE, it should be Celene Dion....
I'm sorry.
Paula,
Great comment. I (obviously) don't agree with much of it, but credit where credit is due.
That was a great post..
Liz,
I don't really know much about Justin Bieber. But, the petition thing is a great idea. I think he's from Sweden.
Actually, he is Canadian.. Sorry to have to tell you that. :D
If Canada wants to apologize for ANYONE, it should be Celene Dion....
I'm sorry.
Accepted.. :D
Actually, personally, I like Dion's music. Her song "It's All Coming Back To Me Now" is very personal to me..
I only posted what I did so as to lead into the SUPERNATURAL quote. :D
Michale
Michale (51) Thanks!
Elizabeth (48):
If Vice President Biden should decide to throw his hat into the ring and mount a third presidential campaign, would you consider him a compelling candidate?
I like Joe Biden -- I like his energy and good humor and I think someone with those qualities could be a shot in the arm for the country. However, Joe is getting up there in age. AND this morning Washington Post released poll data saying Hillary has the biggest lead in the field EVER. Obviously that will change, but I suspect Joe will find that discouraging. Key people from Obama's election/reelection campaigns are already working with Hillary (didn't I read that?) which tells me that Hillary is Obama's chosen successor as well.
Doesn't mean Joe won't run anyway and if he does, well, my questions re: Joe would be pretty much the same as they are for Hillary. Would Joe, ultimately, be able to chart a forward-thinking course or will he favor status-quo tweaks? Joe's shaping experiences happened in the midst of the greatest growth and expansion this country has enjoyed. That period, it seems, was a fluke. We can't go back to that. Does Joe grasp this?
Joe represented Delaware for all those years, a Finance and Insurance haven. He (the worst thing I can say about him) voted "yes" for the revolting Bankruptcy bill in 2005. That bill was a shining representation of beltway-bubble obliviousness wrapped in sanctimony -- does Joe regret that vote? Does he understand anything about the inexorable increase in poverty and insecurity America is undergoing? Where is he on the Paul Krugman/Dean Baker -- conventional wisdom continuum?
Joe was put in charge of the "Middle-Class Task Force" awhile back. If it has accomplished anything meaningful I haven't heard about it. But I suspect any efforts there remain squarely in status-quo-tweak territory and will therefore yield mild improvements at best (if any).
I do think Joe might be one of the few bigshots in the beltway who retains some real connection to his roots -- to working class people, etc. But I think working-class conditions 50 years ago were very different than today. It's a crucial distinction.
The problems facing us are massive and go to the fundamentals of our society and economy. Climate change. Energy. A world that is polluted, ravaged, damaged. Over-dependence on antibiotics creating resistant strains. Nuclear fallout still happening from Fukushima and who knows where the next disaster will come from? Corporate power trumping everything; Finance in the driver’s seat worldwide. Income inequality, wage stagnation, student-loan debt, college becoming unaffordable, unemployment, decimated and inadequate retirement incomes. Citizens United allowing corporations and rich people to have waay more influence on government than the citizenry. Resolving these problems will require an unflinching look at root causes and a recognition that conventional wisdom is wrong. They’ll require change. We will have to find new ways to do things.
For instance, retirement -- what’s the conventional wisdom? People are supposed to save and invest. But how can they save when they can barely make ends meet on their earnings, which have been stuck for 40 years? And how can they intelligently invest when the stock market is festooned with corruption? Banks got reimbursed after 2008 but individuals lost big time. 401k's and Mutual Funds are a grifters ideal. Well, do due diligence and pick smart investments! How? When everyone lies to you? When you aren't educated in finance (not that that really matters). Well educate yourself! How? When? When do you have time? Who do you trust? CNBC? It’s now clear that ratings agencies completely abdicated responsibility in the run up to 2008. Are we supposed to trust their recommendations? Why? There’s been no public airing of crimes and misdemeanors, just quiet fines and back to business-as-usual. Wall Street has been complaining that small investors have left the market. Gee, I wonder why?
What about pensions? Companies and now states/cities are reneging on pensions that people negotiated in good faith. The attitude from on-high appears to be "You fucked up. You trusted us!" (Animal House.)
People can't save if they aren't paid enough to save. They're less likely to save if their leaders tell them to go shopping to kickstart the economy. And they can't "invest" if they have no available income. And if they have income and do invest there's no guarantee they'll have money in hand when they need it. Coz there are NO guarantees in investing. But our leaders believe the responsible thing to do is gamble, but if you lose, well...um...?
What do Joe, Hillary, or anyone else think about retirement? About pensions? About investing? About wages?
There was some discussion this week about robotics and artificial intelligence replacing even more workers. What about that? How do we create jobs? Why do we create jobs? Coz "work" is the American Way. It is? Our current system rewards passive income and penalizes earned income. 1%-ers talk about "paying people what they're worth" and our leaders apparently accept the idea that people CAN work full-time and still be in poverty.
We have nothing in place in America to deal with employment as such. It is left to the private sector to drive and there's a small safety net available temporarily to people when they lose their jobs. After that, nothing. America's leaders talk about honoring work but neglect workers.
You can deconstruct every major problem facing us and will find misplaced beliefs and fears and assumptions standing in the way of solutions. Rivers in West Virginia poisoned? Not enough inspectors. Laws not strong enough or enforced. Why? Can’t put impediments in front of business! Too much red tape! Gotta shrink the deficit! Can’t spend money on federal inspectors. Gotta reduce the size of government! Privatize!
Etc.
So, do I think Joe would be Bigger and Bolder than Hillary? I think he would appear Bigger and Bolder, but in substance, not so much. I would look forward to him making his case but my expectations are low. And if he's just going to be another conventional wisdom beltway Dem, then I'd probably lean Hillary.
Paula -
Those were both good rundowns, on both Hillary and Biden. Thanks!
While I don't agree with everything you said, one thing stood out. I think the gutsiest move Hillary did was to accept SOS even though Obama beat her in a hard-fought primary. She put country and party above whatever feelings remained from the primary fight, and never once did anything to undermine Obama. That is admirable, because not all politicians would have done the same.
Anyway, you've given me food for thought.
-CW
She put country and party above whatever feelings remained from the primary fight, and never once did anything to undermine Obama.
I would have to disagree. There is absolutely NO evidence to support the idea that Hillary put Country before Party..
She knew that if she refused the SOS job, that she would likely poison the well for her future POTUS campaign..
If she had refused Obama then all of the Obamabots within the Democratic Party would have held it against her in her 2016 POTUS campaign..
With ANY Politician, the order of priority is self, Party and Country a very distant third..
I see nothing in Clinton's actions to date that would indicate she isn't anything but the quintessential politician...
Michale
Chris:
Yes Hillary's work as SOS was strong--on its merits-- and above reproach with respect to her ability to put rivalry behind her and act as a genuine team player.
I'm curious what you disagree with --
Cenk Uygur thinks Hillary will be primaried from the left and will lose. I don't know what to think about that but I do think that if Hillary commits she has to fully commit -- she mustn't do a Martha Coakley.
Chris:
Yes Hillary's work as SOS was strong--on its merits-- and above reproach with respect to her ability to put rivalry behind her and act as a genuine team player.
I'm curious what you disagree with --
Cenk Uygur thinks Hillary will be primaried from the left and will lose. I don't know what to think about that but I do think that if Hillary commits she has to fully commit -- she mustn't do a Martha Coakley.
Double Tap!!! :D
Michale
Paula,
Wow. I mean, WOW!
I have to say that I'm very impressed that you stuck strictly to policy matters with respect to the question of whether or not Vice President Biden would be a compelling candidate, in your view.
There wasn't even a hint of a reference to what I would call the asinine media-conceived and perpetuated storyline on Biden ... if you know what I mean, and I'm sure that you do! Anyway, I feel I must thank you for that as this marks a first for me in all of my experience with virtual dialogues - here, at the Huffington Post, and elsewhere!
As for Hillary being Obama's chosen successor ... I think that couldn't possibly be further from the truth. I'd love to discuss the Hillary-Obama-Bill axis with you sometime and why she was an unproductive Secretary of State.
Now, about Biden's policy propensities ...
Biden has never been one to favour "status quo tweaks" but, having said that, I'm pretty sure that Obama was far bigger and bolder on healthcare than Biden would ever have dreamed of being. Long story short, Biden would have opted for putting that particular "time sink" into the hands of the states for experimentation and development. And, there is very little that Joe doesn't grasp, for the record. :)
Re: The Bankruptcy Bill, 2005 version ... now, this is a classic example that proves the rule that one should never judge a pol solely on the basis of a Yea or Nay vote, especially on complex policy matters. First off, that bill was going to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, with or without Biden, number one ... and, number two, Biden worked very hard to amend that bill by adding critical protections for women and children. It may be worth your while to look into that. So, no, Biden does not regret and would most definitely not change his vote on that bill and he is rightly proud of his important contribution to it.
Which brings to mind another vote that proves this rule ... Biden's vote for the 2003 Iraq war which actually wasn't a vote for war at all but rather the best chance for peace, had that authority not been abused by Bush/Cheney et al. This vote has been so spun up over the years that its stated purpose and international context are largely misunderstood today. I don't really relish rehashing all of that, again, but, since I brought it up, I'll entertain a discussion on it if you wish.
I do think Joe might be one of the few bigshots in the beltway who retains some real connection to his roots -- to working class people, etc. But I think working-class conditions 50 years ago were very different than today. It's a crucial distinction.
I have one word for that ... condescension. Sorry, but there is just no other way to construe that statement and what it implies. Try not to do that again, okay? :) Ahem.
Obviously, you have many pertinent questions concerning Biden's views on any number of critical issues. I hope he decides to throw his hat into the ring again and that you'll have the answers you need to decide who is bigger and bolder and most capable of meeting the challenges that will face all of us and the next POTUS.
Michale,
She knew that if she refused the SOS job, that she would likely poison the well for her future POTUS campaign..
I completely agree.
President Obama has made some masterful selections and appointments and asking Hillary to take on the responsibilities of Secretary of State ranked right up there in the number three spot, behind Biden and Geithner.
Though, clearly, Secretary Kerry has been far bigger and bolder - and has accomplished far more for it - in his short tenure than we saw from Hillary in Obama's entire first term.
While I understand the reasoning behind Obama's move, I can't help but wonder if we might be further ahead on a number of foreign policy fronts if the need to rein in the Clintons wasn't such a necessity.
Elizabeth (58):
blush...Thanks!
Couple notes -
I don't judge Biden soley on his Bankruptcy bill vote but I still think it sucked. Softening the edges -- yeah, ok -- but the bill was a givaway to banks and credit-card companies. Like mandatory-minimum sentencing, it reduced Judges discretion, and put hurdles in people's way to bankruptcy by asserting people's "irresponsibility" -- it was nauseating. If he's "proud" of that vote, well, what specifically is he proud of?
Bill was gonna pass anyway? Fine, let it be a repub "achievement". No Dem should have voted for it, but then, that was during a time when Dems couldn't think of enough ways to go along with pubs. No, I don't need to rehash Biden's vote on the Iraq war. Yes, Bush/Cheney abused the intent of the resolution, but then, why on earth did Joe, Hillary or any other Dem expect anything else? Over and over Dems put faith in Bush and his gang that was betrayed. They approved John Roberts and Scalito...gag. We can find reasons to explain why the Dems sucked during Bush, but the bottom line was they sucked. It was a shameful, shameful era and our Dem leaders let us down.
Re: condescension -- I'm not sure what your objection is. To the notion that Joe is or isn't more in touch with his roots (a perception he actively promotes)? Or to the notion that he may look at the plight of working people through glasses colored by his youth? I think that's a legitimate concern -- not just about him, but about any candidate. I talk to people all the time who opine about what whiners young people are because when they were 18 they did a.b.c...without any real grasp at how different conditions are now. Just like people often yap about how you can get by with a bit of planning on food stamps -- totally discounting everything that surrounds the life conditions of a person on food stamps. (Meaning, if you're on food stamps then chances are everything else about your life is difficult and stressful too.)
It is my firm belief that people in general have a hard time understanding other people's challenges unless they've experienced them (even empathetic people who tend to sympathize more than empathize) and you need to cube that with respect to people who live inside the beltway bubble. It's a normal human challenge and the more removed people are from struggle the more and more abstract it becomes. You have to deliberately fight complacency. Does Joe? The beltway is filled with people who are well-off, educated and (relatively) secure. Their concerns are ego and career focused, not survival focused. The top levels of government are filled with Ivy Leaguers and Wall Streeters. The beltway bubble is real. If Joe Biden is any more in touch with life-outside-the-beltway and people who make less than $50,000 a year than Hillary or anyone else, I'd like to hear about it.
The Obama administration has fallen badly down with respect to employment and poverty. There has been no sense of urgency. There's an intellectual recognition but not an emotional recognition. Yes, they've tried a few things but, they've been lackluster and ineffective. I can't blame Joe for this, but then I also don't see where he deserves any special credit or recognition.
You write as though you know Joe Biden personally, or have followed him really closely? If Joe has BOLD ideas, yay! What are they? I am by no means "committed" to Hillary at this point, I'm resigned. She is hands-down better than any republican, but I am certainly ready to be swayed. But rhetoric is just rhetoric. I'm interested in the underpinnings of the ideas presented. Dems fall down because they have lists of plans but only a vague underlying philosophy without consistency or coherency. The vague ideas they hold are better than the fire and brimstone rich = good ideas of the republicans but they're watered down, contradictory and easily compromised. If Joe comes out with anything that is actually more than another "list", however "bold" it sounds, I will be pleasantly surprised.
Paula,
I wasn't cautioning about judging someone on one vote. I was only saying that you cannot ascertain the views of a politician on an issue based solely on his vote, yea or nay.
I am quite sure that Biden would agree with you regarding many of the objectionable elements of the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill but he worked to make the bill better and that is why he voted for it. You'll have to look into it for yourself if you wish to learn about the specifics of his contribution to this bill. What I object to is the criticism of how he voted on this bill without understanding why he voted the way he did.
This is what I was talking about when I wrote that one shouldn't judge a pol strictly on the basis of a yes or no vote on any particular issue and that applies especially to Joe Biden and perhaps not so much to those pols who don't care passionately about these issues and who vote according to the direction of the prevailing winds.
Frankly, I'm not very familiar with this bill. And, as a Canadian, I have followed Biden's senate career for about twenty years, give or take, off and on, as it related to various foreign policy issues, virtually to the exclusion of domestic policy.
The condescension I was referring to was the notion, implicit in your comment, that Biden may be unable to learn, grow and evolve his opinions based on the changing circumstances of the country and its citizens ... the notion that a long-serving and hard-working public servant such as Joe Biden may not be capable of grasping the nature of the critical challenges that currently face the country. That is not a reasonable starting point, even for someone who may not yet understand who Joe Biden is and what he is all about.
I am not here to provide you with a comprehensive analysis of Joe Biden's history of big and bold accomplishments and ideas. Hopefully, you will have an opportunity to hear from the man himself about how he plans to govern when he announces his intentions for 2016.
Elizabeth:
I think assuming that fixtures in Washington "may not be capable of grasping the critical challenges facing the country" is the ONLY reasonable starting point. To assume the opposite as the starting point is the mistake. That's what the beltway bubble is about. The longer people serve in Washington the more removed they get from the rest of the country. The general DC area - Maryland, Virginia etc. are the highest or second-highest income areas in the country. (I think its the highest.) It has very low unemployment as well.
In December Congress shut down without extending benefits to the long-term unemployed. Now it's February. Food pantries throughout the country have been reporting shortages. Walmart is complaining that sales are down because of this (oh, the ironies!). Obama referenced Congress's failing on this in his SOTU but then what? I realize I'm generalizing and maybe Joe Biden is spending his every waking moment currently trying to get something done about this but I would bet money that he isn't.
I'm not saying Joe Biden is any better or worse than other beltway pols with respect to his awareness of what people are actually going through. I'm saying the default position one should take is to assume pols are out-of-touch and then let them prove otherwise.
I'm not talking about intelligence or morality or intentions. I'm saying that when everyone around you is well educated and well-off and everyone you talk to every day has a good job, great contacts and lots of opportunities, then it's only natural that you would start to think that the complaints of outsiders are exaggerated or exceptions instead of the rule, or just not very urgent. And the only way around that is deliberate vigilance and monitoring of your own thoughts and attitudes. Awareness. And routine contact with people who's lives are not privileged.
Meanwhile, No, you certainly aren't responsible for providing info. about Joe Biden or his intentions. We'll see what he has to say when he says it!
Paula / LizM -
I think Paula's got a point, but I would tend to disagree with it.
Politicians do indeed get sucked into the Beltway vortex and lose touch (if they ever had it) with folks back home.
And I hear the point about "back when they were 18." Blue-collar life has changed considerably since Biden was a teen.
But I do think Biden is more authentic on this point than you may be giving him credit for. He does indeed seem like he knows regular folks and hears their concerns, a lot more than a lot of Dems (Hillary included). He may be slightly out of touch (in the Veep bubble), but before that point I think he was much more in tune with the common man's plight than a whole lot of politicians.
Delaware's a small state -- small in both population and in size. What this means is that a senator has a job more akin to a representative -- he's much closer to the voters. Biden famously took the train to DC, where he likely met a lot bigger cross-section of folks than a lot of other pols in DC.
I dunno, just hearing Biden speak you can truly hear the authenticity when it comes to understanding people. He's not as good as Bill Clinton, perhaps (who is?) in this regard, but he's a lot better than most.
-CW
Chris: I agree that Biden comes across as authentic and in-touch. So the question then is, what about it?
What does he do and what has he done, and what will he/would he do as President FOR the people he seems to genuinely care about?
Because it's not just a matter of connection, though connection is critically important, or goodwill or even intentions. It's the actions the intentions inspire and motivate -- the votes -- the vetoes -- the legislation aggressively supported -- the commitment against adversity and pushback.
That's one of the reasons the Bankruptcy Bill really rankles -- it was something that was created purely to benefit lenders and make life harder for people. It made Student Loans inescapable and now there's all these efforts needed to mitigate the results. Biden voted against an amendment that would have prohibited CC companies from charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers and allow servicemembers to benefit from state laws that would provide more protection than the federal law. He voted against an amendment that would have prevented senior citizens from losing their paid-off homes if they had to go bankrupt. He didn't vote against several others that lost anyway, but he still voted for passage of the bill.
Again, I like Joe. I think he's probably a lovely person. But we all of us have to stop conflating niceness with results, or even empathy - which is very important - for results.
Joe Biden, sympathetically telling a kid that he/she is stuck with a $40,000 loan for life irregardless of the poor job market and low salary potential currently operative might just make the pill a tiny bit less bitter to swallow. Maybe. But it won't help the kid pay off the loan.
Paula,
But we all of us have to stop conflating niceness with results, or even empathy - which is very important - for results.
Nobody I know around here does that. Do you? You're sounding awfully condescending, again. This appears to be a pattern with progressives.
Elizabeth (65):
Yep, that's me! I'm a condescending progressive!
I stand by my contention. If you want to address the contention I'm interested in your thoughts.
Paula,
Your contention that the CW.com crowd engages in the conflation of "niceness with results" is pure fantasy.
Elizabeth (67):
My contention wasn't limited to the CW crowd. It was intended to be widely inclusive! Indeed I'll assert that this is a universal pattern; that it is unconscious, and that it is one of the root causes of our very frustrating political landscape.
Although I should broaden the conflation and say: "people conflate attractive qualities with results". Niceness was specifically applicable to Joe Biden, but look at Chris Christie, for instance. He's been widely praised for being "tough", "blunt", "decisive", "pragmatic" because he came across that way, and the assumption has been that he's gotten results. But what has he actually gotten done? He's directed money that he got from the Feds to people who support him politically. He's entangled in several development / real estate ventures that appear festooned with corruption; he's placed attack dog types in positions of power throughout NJ; unemployment in NJ is above the national average. He's done his best to break unions, he insults teachers, etc.
People use appearance and affect, etc., as a shorthand to evaluate other peoplein the absence of other data. (Think of job interviews and the advantages held by good looking people.)
Since our media focuses almost entirely ON superficials, the average voter isn't provided with more meaningful data and will have to dig for it. Which very few people are motivated to do. So they rely on the superficials to form their opinions.
I am not immune. No one is. This behavior is what humans do to get through life - we are wired this way. No one has the time or access to the data needed to carefully evaluate every person we run across. We rely on the shorthands of judging by appearance and affect because it works most of the time with most strangers in most situations where nothing terribly important is at stake.
This natural tendency makes us very vulnerable with respect to our decisions re: quality of our politicians and their results. Equally, that same tendency, exercised by our politicians, impacts the quality of their decision making capabilities. (Which is why I want to know what underlies their stated positions.)
The only way to counter unconscious processing is to be aware of it and I don't think that type of awareness is at all common. In fact, when raised, people will strenuously deny it!
I will claim awareness of this phenomenon because, as a result of an illness some years ago, I began to actively monitor my own thoughts (for purposes of pain management). The process of really tuning into the the ongoing narrative in your own head is pretty enlightening. From there I began a lot of reading about cognition and the limitations of our conscious processing. You start delving into this topic and you see how Politics is an area rife with the manipulation of unconscious processing. Frank Luntz's work being a perfect embodiment -- the effective use of nice sounding words to mask the malign intent of republican efforts.
People really hate the idea that they make decisions unconsciously and rationalize them after the fact and that they are driven far more by emotion than by logic. Personally I think emotion doesn't get the credit it deserves but that's another topic. Suffice it to say that if you want to make conscious decisions you have to first recognize the role of unconscious processing, habit, ingrained assumptions, etc. In the realm of evaluating political leaders I think a way of doing this is to look at what they have done versus what they have said and/or how they have said it.
Paula,
Suffice it to say that if you want to make conscious decisions you have to first recognize the role of unconscious processing, habit, ingrained assumptions, etc. In the realm of evaluating political leaders I think a way of doing this is to look at what they have done versus what they have said and/or how they have said it.
That's great advice. I hope you take it!
My contention wasn't limited to the CW crowd.
There's the problem in a nutshell ... you should have EXCLUDED the Cw.com crowd when making such condescending contentions as you are commonly wont to do.
For the record, there is nothing common about this blog space or about the people who participate in it, including you!
Paula [64] -
Well, Biden did need to get reelected, and Delaware's only claim to fame is banking...
I don't know (1) Biden's overall Senate record, bills sponsored, etc., and (2) much detail about the bankruptcy law you speak of. I do remember when it passed, and that it does indeed stink to high heaven in many respects. But was Biden key in its formation and passage? Or was he just one of many Dems who voted for it? I don't remember.
I hear your points about the media, but the public is also to blame as well. There just aren't that many folks who pay all that much attention to politics. It's tough to admit, being in the business as I am, but there it is. More people get political news from Jay Leno and Letterman than all the network news anchors combined. Sad, but true.
This is why I pay such close attention to charisma in candidates. You're right -- superficial crap rules. Dems have nominated well-qualified candidates without a shred of charisma more times than I can count (Dukakis, Kerry spring immediately to mind). Nominate a Bill Clinton, though, and people love him. Same over on the GOP side. Bob Dole? Really? Mitt fer-gosh-sakes Romney? Wow. But then they go with Dubya, who for all his failings was pretty charismatic, and the public loves him.
This is how I measure "how much a Republican candidate scares me." Highest on my list was Chris Christie. Can't stand his results (as you put it), but have to admit the man is the center of attention in any room he's in. High on my list from previous years was Mike Huckabee -- he had the authetic "aw shucks" factor that all the others just didn't.
If Christie is permanently damaged goods, I think the next highest on my list for 2016 would be... um, Jeb Bush? Haven't seen him speak much, so really don't know.
About the brain stuff, I would highly recommend you read just about any book from Drew Westen. "The Political Brain" is a good place to start. It is eye-opening. From what you've already said, you will love it.
Here's some schadenfreude to finish this comment with:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-agony-of-frank-luntz/282766/
Seems Frank Luntz is now depressed with the direction of the Republican Party. Enjoy!
:-)
-CW
Chris:
Well, Biden did need to get reelected, and Delaware's only claim to fame is banking...
So we should all be resigned to being sacrificed at the alter of corporate interests? Coz they write the checks, right? So, no matter how damaging the proposal, how negative the repercussions, we need to let it slide coz that's what it takes to get re-elected. That's "leadership!". So if Joe voted for this piece of shit bill, since, at the time, he was serving at the behest of the banking industry, we should nevertheless now feel confident that his former banking ties will have no impact on future choices?
I've been (in various ways) trying to write about how unexamined assumptions negatively influence decisions. So, if we all accept the idea that it is ok for politicians to, essentially, sell their votes, then we won't even bother to ask a Joe Biden (should he run) why he voted the way he did, what he thinks about it now, and why we should trust his judgement with respect to the financial community? Isn't that something we should know? (Given the incredibly significant role the financial community is playing in inequality and our stagnating employment numbers?)
I'm using Joe as an example; every contender's record should be reviewed and questioned.
I'm not saying that solutions to the "problem" I'm raising are easy. But that is different from pretending it isn't a problem at all.
So, should we simply accept this conventional wisdom as "fact" or "natural law" or invincible? Can't do a thing about it? That's just the way it is...?
Isn't that an assumption?
I want to address a couple of other points by my posts keep ending up being too long. I may address the issue of the public not being interested in politcs and charisma separately - I'm thinking about it.
I've read Drew Westen, and the article about Luntz. Have you read George Lakoff?
Paula,
I want to address a couple of other points but my posts keep ending up being too long.
Luckily for you, there's no word limit here. Heh. So, don't ever let that stop you from addressing the issues.
I hear your points about the media, but the public is also to blame as well. There just aren't that many folks who pay all that much attention to politics.
The implicit assumption is that people should pay attention to politics because the activities of politicians impacts their lives and their world, right? Otherwise, why should they pay attention to something that they don't find interesting? So lets contend that it is a "duty" to "pay attention" whether you're interested or not.
That leads to a number of questions: Can you get people interested who aren't? How? How much do they need to know? Where/how will they get the information? How can they know the information is valid?
Because "paying attention" isn't enough -- FOX News types consider themselves well-informed. So people need to either BE interested or ACT on interest they don't hold AND they must exercise critical thinking in their selection and evaluation of information.
Now, we hear reports about congresspeople who don't understand how our government actually functions. But we like the idea that non-politicians (with busy lives, lots of stresses, limited time and interest and often limited education) will properly educate themselves and be informed citizens even though virtually everything about American life works to prevent this outcome. But they should, ideally, soldier on, surmount all obstacles deliberately placed in their way, and then what - ?
Well, we assume that well-informed citizens will be different than ill-informed citizens and the result will be good. But how will this difference manifest?
The hope is that information will lead to action because people just thinking things doesn't actually accomplish much -- they have to be moved to exert pressure on their representatives; they have to get measures on ballots; they have to vote, etc. Once again, there's many obstacles placed in their path because well-informed citizens tend to want things that powerful people don't like. And powerful people use their money and influence to try to either convince people to think differently, or to neuter their abilities to affect change.
So every step of the way the American Citizen must push; must work; must overcome resistance, just to be able to know what the hell is going on, let alone understand the details of many complex issues.
But even highly motivated and interested people tend to be informed on some things and not informed on others. After all, how many hours are there in the day to learn about everything?
Realistically people, no matter how interested or well-intentioned one cannot be genuinely knowledgable about everything re: Politics. It's not possible. What do we do about that? Well, I think most of us tend to support people who are on our page re: things we know/care something about, and we basically hope their other views are equally kosher. This enables us to vote for people who have done some pretty bad things because they've also done some good things - things we like, and if the bad things didn't affect us personally or just don't interest us, we let them go.
But, is that the best we can do? We can't know everything and we can't have everything. We have to make "semi-informed" and imperfect choices all the time. How can we know which choices are the important ones? (Think about abortion and the rightwing. For years they've been able to attract those voters due to their abortion positions while screwing them in every other way.)
The solution I would offer is to suggest that we begin to focus on the underpinnings, the root assumptions from which these folks operate. Do they believe people are more important than money or money is more important than people? How does their view align with their positions and their votes?
That's my particular starting point: people first or money first? There may be others that are good or better. (Do we build the world to benefit the many or the few?) But those should be the the kinds of places where we start. To me, if you can't start with a fundamental value and then show how your view/action reflects it then one or the other is wrong.
The key is that they have to explain the values and how the actions taken/not taken exemplify the values claimed. They can't just yap about values -- that's easy to do and meaningless.
If we were able to move discourse into these areas it would make it much easier to predict the behaviors of the pol, and it would reduce the need to know everything about everything. If we got good at this type of analysis, collectively, we could cut through a lot of irrelevant crap. If pols were required to present their views in this way it would force them to have to work through their thoughts and beliefs as well, which would also help them when they were faced with tough choices.
Currently we face a whole slew of obstacles to "a better world" -- I get emails everyday with long lists of "what should we work on?" and I see Dems as being millions of chickens running around with their heads cut off. Our energies are continually splintered, our effectiveness is diluted and we're constantly frustrated.
What I'm talking about would redirect all that. Would it change things instantly? No. But neither will what we've been doing. Would it get more people interested in Politics? Over time I bet it would, certainly more readily than demanding that people take an interest in something they aren't interested in, or are even actively repulsed by.
What I think it would do is start a cascade of changes that would flow outward organically, one leading to the next. I'm convinced that changing the direction of this country will require new approaches, new ways of looking at things and a rejection of conventional wisdoms and unexamined assumptions that keep us going around in circles.