Hammered
On Wednesday, Barack Obama will be delivering a speech every bit as important as his campaign-saving soliloquy on race at the height of the Rev. Wright imbroglio. Things are much different now than they were in March of 2008, however. Back then, Obama could do little wrong. He was riding a wave of populist support, and a tsunami of media good will. He was the anointed savior of a system widely believed to have been drug down by sixteen years of bitter partisanship. Today, the tide has turned. Large segments of the populace have become unsupportive. His policies and job performance are held in low regard by half or more, and the mainstream media, while not necessarily on the attack, has at least demonstrated healthy skepticism.
What happened in such a remarkably short period of time?
Did we simply misjudge the situation? Were his answers always right because the questions were never hard? Did the rancor from the Bush and Clinton years convince us to ignore the record and believe the rhetoric? Are Obama and team not the master strategists we thought?
Evidence to that effect is certainly starting to pile up.
It's hard to deny that the administration and congressional Democrats are in chaos over healthcare. Less than two days out from the President's supposed clarifying and unifying address, the message is more muddled than ever. The performances of Obama during his weekend rallies, and his acolytes on the Sunday morning talk shows, meant to lay the groundwork for Wednesday, have only increased the confusion.
Less nebulous is that the answer man apparently has only one answer—more government, and regrettably for Team Obama, it turns out a plurality of the voters don't like it so much. Will we see some flexibility on Wednesday, or will it be more of the stark partisanship and ideological rigidity that has defined the Obama presidency to this point? Perhaps he'll take a page from the book of one of his idols, FDR, who was known for "bold, persistent experimentation?" It wasn't unusual for Roosevelt to quickly discard failed or questionable policies, and implement big new ideas, regardless of what side of the isle they originated from. Not so for Obama. To date, despite a series of missteps and disappointing policy outcomes, he continues to cling to his statist view. It's the one size fits all approach to governing.
As the saying goes, when a man's only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...and boy, are we getting hammered.
What happened in such a remarkably short period of time?
Did we simply misjudge the situation? Were his answers always right because the questions were never hard? Did the rancor from the Bush and Clinton years convince us to ignore the record and believe the rhetoric? Are Obama and team not the master strategists we thought?
Evidence to that effect is certainly starting to pile up.
It's hard to deny that the administration and congressional Democrats are in chaos over healthcare. Less than two days out from the President's supposed clarifying and unifying address, the message is more muddled than ever. The performances of Obama during his weekend rallies, and his acolytes on the Sunday morning talk shows, meant to lay the groundwork for Wednesday, have only increased the confusion.
Less nebulous is that the answer man apparently has only one answer—more government, and regrettably for Team Obama, it turns out a plurality of the voters don't like it so much. Will we see some flexibility on Wednesday, or will it be more of the stark partisanship and ideological rigidity that has defined the Obama presidency to this point? Perhaps he'll take a page from the book of one of his idols, FDR, who was known for "bold, persistent experimentation?" It wasn't unusual for Roosevelt to quickly discard failed or questionable policies, and implement big new ideas, regardless of what side of the isle they originated from. Not so for Obama. To date, despite a series of missteps and disappointing policy outcomes, he continues to cling to his statist view. It's the one size fits all approach to governing.
As the saying goes, when a man's only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...and boy, are we getting hammered.
During the two months between election day and his inauguration, Obama was supposedly studying FDR's successes and failures intently. If he is a fervent student of FDR then now is the time for Obama to follow his teacher's steps - back off the health care ramrod strategy and challenge lawmakers from across the aisle to present a well-thought plan that encompasses feedback from the thousands of town meetings over the past several weeks.
Reply to this
Apparently, he never made it past the chapter on Big Government.
Reply to this
I hope he's brave enough to call a spade a spade, acknowledge that the debate has been a disaster of partisanship so far, and pledge to reformulate the dialogue going forward. He could promise to instill some party discipline at least on his side of the aisle and implore Republicans to do the same. Then he should extend the olive branch tonight with some compromises that are actually passable. Otherwise, it looks to me like we're going to end up with what we have now, which will be a colossal failure for Obama and will tee up the Republicans for a win in 2012.
Reply to this
It's pretty remarkable how politically inept the Obama team has been during this "debate." They could have relatively easily put the Republicans back on their heels by offering up comprehensive tort reform for the public option. By supporting something contrary to the wishes of their largest donor group (trial lawyers), they would have demonstrated the Democrat's commitment to their self-proclaimed most important issue--healthcare for all, while simultaneously conceding on a matter that has been at the top of the Republican wish list for years. The Republicans likely would still reject the public option, but it would allow Democrats to recapture the high ground and allow them to pass their version of the bill with less blow back from the electorate.
Reply to this
I didn't get to read this blog till after the speech, and your question was answered. He continues to blame Bush. He continues to curse the people who would dare to object to this 1200 page monstrosity. Accusing them of lies and distortion, when they quote from the actual bill. This guy is a true socialist who believes in top down control of society, and he is bolstered by a "mainstream" media that ignores the truth and goes out if its way to assail his detractors. The outrage over Joe Wilson's "liar" outburst is a perfect example. Granted, it is inappropriate and disrespectful to blurt that out during a presidential address, and I don't condone it, but it is TRUE!!! To listen to Charlie Gibson and the rest of these dorks wringing their hands over this, makes me want to vomit. I wish Wilson had just waited till after the speech and stood on the steps of the Capitol screaming LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!! The sad reality is that the story became how "unprecedented" this is even though they apparently weren't listening to any of GWB's speeches. The real story is that he is a liar, but that has been lost. He used all the focus group words like "choice" and "competition" to smooth over the fact that he wants a gov't run system, pure and simple. I think we'd be better off with TORT reform, allowing interstate competition among insurers, and setting up a charity fund to provide insurance for the 10-15 million people who are actually too poor for health insurance. We could get all the hollyweird celebutards to do a telethon once a year, drag a bunch of po' folks that are "victimized" by the current health care system (even though they get free care any way) and the American people would undoubtedly shell out the funds required.
Reply to this
I do find it amusing that with one breath he chastises others for spreading misinformation, and with the next, he constructs a straw man argument that completely and disingenuously mischaracterizes the position of an opponent.
Reply to this