It's the damnedest damned if he does, damned if he doesn't predicament I've seen in politics for some time.
When President Obama neglects to publicly work the health-care issue for ten minutes running, he's accused of dogging it, of failing to provide leadership -- and that, rather than health-care reform, becomes the preeminent story. When he stages a media blitz, he's assaulted for being "overexposed" -- and that, rather than health-care reform, becomes the preeminent story.
Anything to avoid covering the substance of this rather dry subject, inextricably packed as it is with the mysterious bureaucratic language of penalty-bearing "mandates" and unbending "cost curves" and other such unavoidable, byzantine details. All that complexity for a somewhat bemused American electorate, half of which, as I recall from one poll last decade, couldn't name the sitting vice president of the United States; and all that complexity "reported" by depthless media that are still pondering whether racism is a meddling factor in American politics.
But as for yesterday, it's hard not to find both agreement and disagreement with the NY Times' assessment of Obama's "Full Ginsburg": that "for so well-spoken and confident a president, the lack of spontaneity on Sunday was striking" -- which it was, because that's what he was going for -- while "there was nothing in those stagy interviews that shed light on whether his message would take hold" -- a judgment I found curiously blinkered.
Take hold? Even some of the interviewers were surely groping for comprehension. On "Meet the Press," for example, David Gregory asked about the late great public option -- Gregory: "You effectively said to the left, 'It's not gonna happen,' " which is true enough -- to which Obama fastidiously pivoted like a defense lawyer reminded in court of his client's extensive priors: "Well what I -- no, no, that's not true. What I've said is the public option, I think, should be a part of this but we shouldn't think that, somehow, that's the silver bullet that solves health care. What I've said, for example, on -- what's called an individual mandate. During the campaign I said, 'Look, if health care is affordable, then I think people will buy it.' So we don't have to say to folks, 'You know what? You have to buy health care.' "
Say what? Obama was trying -- I think -- to emphasize a mandate's actuarial spreading of risk and thus doing the duty of cost control, which a public option was meant, in part, to do. Yet there was real doubt that this "message would take hold," since it was, as delivered, nearly incomprehensible.
Similarly, in partial refutation of its own assertion about light-shedding and message-holding, the Times noted this: "When asked by ABC if a health insurance mandate was the same as a tax increase, the president replied: 'What I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that.' He added: 'For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.' "
I'm sorry, I've read that quote as quoted by the Times, as well as the full transcript, a dozen times in search of some linearity, but it's an elusive bugger. The president backloaded the better answer -- "Everybody in America ... has to get auto insurance [and] nobody considers that a tax increase" -- but by then we had all consulted Webster's at Stephanopoulos' behest and were altogether lost.
So no, I'm profoundly skeptical that Obama's message yesterday will take hold, since the message itself was slipping about on a greased pole of circumlocution.
But that, unfortunately, is the point -- the ineluctable point that offers something of a pardon for Obama's, it seemed to me, almost criminal message-mutilation: One simply cannot fit health-care reform on a bumper sticker, except in opposition to it (QED, John Boehner's "MTP" appearance, which in less than 30 seconds heaved this very simple, Luntzian message: "a giant takeover," "this big government plan," "this big government plan," "this big government option," "this big government plan").
Also exculpatory was an acute observation made on "This Week"'s Roundtable by Robert Reich. Franklin Roosevelt too, he noted, had wanted to push for some form of national health insurance, but, as the presidential founder of modern progressivism confessed to his aides, he avoided raising the issue because he knew he couldn't explain it (and therefore sell it). That portion of today's progressives who find pleasure in pedagogically popping off about how Obama should by-God emulate Roosevelt's fearlessly gumptious leadership might want to keep that in mind.
Still, whatever Obama now publicly says or doesn't say on the matter of health-care reform, however much he is underexposed or overexposed, means rather little. It's in Congress' hands. And if one really wishes to invoke the Almighty, this would be the time and that would be the place.
Was It Just Me?
Does anyone else think that Obama sounded a bit too much like Dumbya at times? He didn't mispronounce words like the mis-under-edjimikatid 43 generally did, but he sure seemed to jumble his ideas at times.
Thank goodness for bloggers
Had I watched Obama "over-exposed" on the teevee machine yesterday -- I would have barfed in my LazyBoy.
I read the people who watch that mess, so thankfully, I don't have to.
No public option = no health care reform.
That may even fit on a bumper sticker.
just the latest nail in the coffin of the savior
Another fauxbama shock and awe moment! Shock the people who voted for you, and awe the lame news repeaters with mendacity! Lots of people expected no less from our personal GOP manchurian candidate. That the rest are surprised is amusing, but not the least bit funny. I see P.M. really gave websters a workout to come up with something to say today. Maybe all the big words fit the theme of the "ineluctable point". Speaking of points, whats the point in this article? Its clear the fight was over before it started as far as the white house was concerned. The post game wrap up is a little late for a punt, but lets hope more responsible people in congress are still on the field to run it back.
A curious statement:
One simply cannot fit health-care reform on a bumper sticker, except in opposition to it
Really?
Choose Life/Choose Single Payer
Single Payer: Easy Enough for France
Insurance Scammers Must Go
Blue Cross/Blue Shield = Death Panel
And on and on. And that's before coffee. The worst of these is clearer than any of the hackneyed rhetoric emanating from Pelosi and Obama and the MSM.
This is a mandatory payment or you're penalized. They've CRIMINALIZED being poor.
The Auto Insurance analogy is beyond insulting, as you can choose not to drive for economic or other reasons, and you're NOT REQUIRED TO PAY A FINE for doing so.
So I want to know, 'cause I can't pay it, as of now and the last few years...what happens when I don't get the insurance I couldn't afford for the last 5 years and I can't pay the penalty either?
Fines bring the government enforcement mechanisms to life, and are they implying that you'll be garnished, foreclosed on, even imprisoned? They do it for measly traffic fines...what will be teh mechanism for the grand or so for all the people and families who...just...can't....pay....
Kafka shouldn't be invoked needlessly, but this position embodies, DEFINES, is the bleeding shining paragon of Kafkaesque.
Medicare for everyone!
It is a tax, so why try to hide the fact?
Also, it is not a healthcare bill, it is a health insurance reform bill. A healthcare bill would tax junk food and provide education and incentives for people to start eating healthy, organic whole foods, instead of toxic factory farmed junk foods.
Personally, I eat a healthy diet, so I have no need for health insurance, other than catastrophic care in the event of an accidental injury.
I also think it unconstitutional to require everyone to purchase anything from anyone. If the US Government wants to provide Medicare to me, then fine, I will pay for that just as I pay for Social Security. But I refuse to purchase general health care insurance from any private, for profit company, and I refuse to pay a fine for not doing so.
The cause of Obama's obfuscating communication skills is the fact that he is a Blue Dog DINO-Fascist trying to sell us change we can believe in that is just more of the same. People with forked tongues have a tough time being understood.
WTF!
I never thought the day would come when Barack Obama would actually make me angry. I have been rooting for this president all the way, keeping my fingers crossed that some of his seemingly odd decisions are part of a clever long-term strategy and our patience will be rewarded.
However, I felt personally insulted by the president’s comment, “we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore”. Are you serious? Is that how you see the uninsured? Are they a burden to the wealthy? I keep trying to read his words as being mis-stated or mis-interpreted, but it sure seems like he’s implying that everyone, working stiffs included will be legally required to pay out even more money.
And the auto insurance thing he said was a cruel joke... how out of touch with reality is that? I thought this guy was supposed to have been a community organizer in Chicago, he should know that a lot of people don’t or can no longer afford to drive - especially in this post-Bush economy.
If we already are spending a higher percentage than other nations on health care, why would we need even more money from working stiffs to pay for it? I am hoping the president mis-spoke, otherwise it would imply he thinks people are ignorant enough to think that it would not be a tax. This would be a boon for insurance companies though. I don’t think you’ll find such legal requirements in modern civilized countries, but you will find health care.
What are Democrats afraid of? If they don’t start using their power, it is extremely unlikely they will get it again any time soon. A mandate for the poor to pay out even more of their ever-shrinking incomes would guarantee immense political suffering for Democrats.
All Republicans have to offer right now is along the lines of the frothing loony Teabaggers, or Palin facebook hysterics, which may make funny headlines but the majority of people in this country see it as rather pathetic. A tax on the poor would actually give Republicans some real ammunition. Saying it’s not a tax would be – dare I say it – an actual “You Lie!” moment.
It's the Cognitive Dissonance, Stupid
Shorter Carpy: Progressives are whining, petulant punks and Obama should have stuck a shiv in them on Press The Meat so they'd finally know their place in the universe.
You know what, asshole? I'm all for people being able to earn a living--but I really wonder what Buzzflash was thinking when they decided to hire a corporate-loving, snarky centrist like you to write for a decidedly liberal website. Shouldn't you be at the New Republic?
Anyway, to get to your other main point, yes, the message is muddled. That's what happens when you have cognitive dissonance. Just think about how hard it is to keep these competing thoughts in mind when Obama speaks to liberals:
Yes, I'm in favor of a public option, there could still be a public option, but it's only a sliver, but we must have competition, (but I've already bargained away the public option last spring, my secret)...
You see, here's what I suspect is going on. Obama is trying everything under the sun to tell liberals there will be no public option without actually telling them there will be no public option.
And therein lies your message problem.
And oh, those pesky liberal blogs, putting a spine into otherwise spineless House liberals--this is adding a complication to Obama's corporate sellout that he didn't count on and doesn't appreciate. And the only person that can possibly give him any bipartisan cover for this sellout--Sen Snowe--is extracting a further pound of flesh, sure to inflame liberals even further.
Obama's messaging is what it is. He's too stubborn to hire a cognitive scientist like George Lakoff to help him engage the lizard brain--the only effective way to employ a message. No, he runs around the country lying to liberals about the public option like they ARE lizards.
And he's not particularly good at it because the cognitive dissonance he experiences every time he mentions the already-bargained-away public option makes it look like he's about to undergo a root canal.
About the only thing Carpy and I agree on is that Obama should just stick the shiv in already and stop lying to liberals--then we can all go about the business of ascertaining the fallout or lack thereof.
you got it pg
ditto everything you said.
This is also the real reason why they dumped Howard Dean
It was not because Dean was right and Rahm was wrong and they could not get along. It was because Dean is not a corporate owned yes man and he could not go along with the DINO plan to commit mutiny against WE THE PEOPLE, again.
Rotten analogy -- and, by the way, let them eat cake!
"Everybody in America ... has to get auto insurance [and] nobody considers that a tax increase"
No, millions of Americans don't own a car for a variety of reasons and economic inability can be one of them. In contrast, most of them would like to keep living.