Barack Hussein Met Old Lyndon Baines

[David Zephyr]

BARACK HUSSEIN MET OLD LYNDON BAINES
(by David Zephyr for the Eve of President Obama's National Speech on Universal Healthcare in hopes he will be bold and expand Medicare to all Americans)

Barack Hussein met old Lyndon Baines,
One sleepless night, they tell.
They took a walk; they took to talk,
Of Lyndon’s White House hell.

Lyndon sighed as he kept his stride,
Down White House corridors.
‘Generals will tell you’re doing swell,
For Defense contracting whores.’

‘It’s hard to sleep when you’re in knee-deep,’
The Texan told Barack,
‘Cuz children die and widows cry,
With each hour we attack.’

‘That whole Goddamned Vietnam,
Became Lyndon’s War,
But Pakistan and Afghanistan,
Will define who you, too are.’

‘Your legacy’s like mine, you see,
We’re Democrats with Congress to spare,
But ponder this in night’s sweet bliss,
It’s still Lyndon’s Medicare.'

[H2O Man]

1. Very good!

There are a number of lessons that President Obama can and should learn from LBJ. The best thing he could learn is how to play "hard ball." If not, he will learn why LBJ encountered failures that destroyed his presidency.

Definitely recommended. Again, well done! A pleasure to read. Thank you.

[David Zephyr]

10. Thanks. "Hard ball". Yes.

LBJ could play hardball like you say. He was "the master of the Senate" and he took that right into the White House.

Bill Moyers' "no more Mr. Nice Guy" commentary to Barack was spot on. Thanks H20 Man. :hi:

[jonnyblitz]

2. you're brave using his middle name. that tends to freak people

out here. :hi:

[David Zephyr]

11. Good Sunday morning, jonnyblitz.

Obama has a good middle name, he used it proudly in his great speech in Egypt...and it rhymed with Baines so nicely. :hi:

[grantcart]

19. I know, whenever I hear "Baines" I have a psychotic epidsode.

[David Zephyr]

24. I understand.

So do I.

[kentuck]

3. If Barack can attain what LBJ did for the people...

He would be considered a success. He may be excused for the disaster in Afghanistan...unless he has 58,000 dead.

[David Zephyr]

12. LBJ added to Roosevelt's New Deal with the Great Society, as I know you know, Kentuck.

Strip away his truly catastrophic war, LBJ's domestic accomplishments shine and look monumental today in comparison to what came after him for the next 40 years.

We don't know the measure of the man, Obama, yet. He has the opportunity and the power to make the change that he promised. We will all know more next week. I hope Obama heard Bill Moyers.

Thanks, Kentuck. :hi:

[ProSense]

21. "We don't know the measure of the man, Obama, yet." A tad disingenuous

huh?

Apparently, you already know.

[lillypaddle]

4. Good job!

[David Zephyr]

13. Welcome to the DU, lillypaddle!

:hi:

[lillypaddle]

18. Why thank you

thank you very much. :hi:

[lillypaddle]

5. Sorry, dupe post

How do you delete, btw?

[KoKo]

6. Go for it, Obama! You can do it! If you don't you have been "rolled."

Show courage...show spine...be the leader you promised us when you repeated over and over "change we can believe in." The people who rose up and elected you didn't expect you to be a puppet for corporate interests. Be bold and strike out on your own before you are backed into that corner of compromise and triangulation that we Democrats have gotten so used to. If you aren't bold and decisive now you will not have another chance. The PTB will have compromised you into oblivion and they will find a scandal or pull a dark stunt to make sure you are saddled with consequences the rest of your Presidency.

[David Zephyr]

14. Well said, KoKo!

Good morning, too! :hi:

[TheKentuckian]

7. Even LBJ had the head start from like 3 attempts during JFK's term, momentum from JFK's death

a growing economy, and still didn't get 60 Democratic votes despite having 68 to work with, that's right 68, LBJ had some fucking wiggle room and there was such a thing as moderate Republicans (which he needed).

I'm not sure even LBJ could herd cats well enough to get 60 votes today. I think Obama should go to the mat for this BUT I think if he does then rational Democrats should stick with him. The "if the Democrats can't do this with 60 votes" meme is a contextually stupid and a historically ignorant and arrogant one. No one has had such demanding with so little margin of error.

This kind of thing is a very heavy lift and while the lifting is desperately needed, history shows it takes more than just sharp elbows to pass historic legislation and that often you simply have to keep plugging away at it.

I'm not saying anything about settling, compromise, or being good soldiers but I am saying that it is not worth going to the mat for those that treat it the same as not trying or being sold out. The very best come up short, the greats dust off and keep hammering away. I've seen plenty of people that are talking about walking away if we can't get the right kind of bill passed this year. That regardless of what is spent trying to do it. They just point at the number 60 like that bar has not been unreachable in the past on legislation of this scope and that sometimes you have to keep trying and even get more help to a President.

Everyone talks about how LBJ would have squared this away but fails to remind us of how uphill that battle was or how he had much more to work with to do it. Obama has no margin of error, one entrenched and dug in Senator and our only option is a 5 year reconciliation. A period so brief that it would be almost over before anything can get off the ground.

I support and stand in solidarity with the determination to get the best possible deal for the American people but I scoff at those who flat out refuse to even acknowledge the hurdles and obstacles in our path and I want to just flat out part ways with those who scream and demand but will shuffle off with their toys if we cannot get over the hump.

At a certain point one must reasonably accept the possibility of failure with a resolve to keep fighting. If you demand the party go absolutely to the mat then it is your responsibility to be there to help pull us back up. Otherwise, you are bargaining in no better faith than Grassley. Demanding is our responsibility but only cowards and traitors abandon those fighting for them when things get rough.

[ProSense]

8. You hit the nail on the head.

Exactly, LBJ had a 66 and 68 Democratic majority to work with. Could you imagine if Obama had 68 Dems in the Senate? LBJ also spent nearly 15 years in the Senate and had a lot more sway with the Democratic majority, and having a super majority was a huge plus. You're also right about the headstart.

Chapter 4: The Fourth Round-1957 to 1965

PRESIDENT TRUMAN was right, of course. In fact, some of the spadework for what would ultimately come to be known as Medicare was done in the final 3 years of the Truman administration.

The first person to suggest that Government health insurance be limited (at least at first) to social security beneficiaries was Dr. Thomas Parran of the Public Health Service, in 1937 (see footnote No. 25, page 46). At the time, Dr. Parran's idea was not pursued. In 1944 an officia1 of the Social Security Administration, MerrillG. Murray, mentioned the idea again, probably without being aware of Dr. Parran's previous suggestion. (1) But Murray's idea was also buried in the files and forgotten.

The notion of limiting health insurance to social security beneficiaries seemed, from the point of view of the administration, to have several merits. For some time, Social Security officials had been troubled by the fact that, as long as the social security system failed to protect against the greatest single cause of economic dependency in old age--the high cost of medical care--it could not really fulfill its basic objective. (Although Falk's original proposal included all categories of social security beneficiaries, the preponderance were elderly.)

The proposal was also far more modest in scope than National Health Insurance, and therefore far less costly. It would establish the health insurance principle and enable the Government to gain experience in this field. And, certainly not least, focusing the proposal on so demonstrably needy a group of citizens would enhance the possibilities of enactment. (The 1950 census showed that the aged population had grown from 3 million in 1900 to 12 million in 1950, or from 4 to 8 percent of the total population. Two-thirds of these pepple had incomes of less than $1,000 annually, and only 1 in 8 had health insurance. Old people were long considered "bad risks" by commercial insurers, and unions had not made much headway in obtaining coverage for retired workers through employer-sponsored plans.) Falk's proposal also meshed with a growing interest by the Federal Government in the entire spectrum of problems afflicting elderly citizens, an interest sparked by the 1950 National Conference on Aging--the first conference of its kind. In 1950 the Federal Government had taken a significant first step in the direction of providing medical care for the aged, when it enacted a program of direct payments to "medical vendors" for the treatment of welfare clients, including the elderly.

<...>

[Cha]

9. Thank you, The Kentuckian..

"Demanding is our responsibility but only cowards and traitors abandon those fighting for them when things get rough."

[msallied]

15. Absolutely brilliant. I couldn't agree with you more.

So much of this debate lacks historical perspective. Now, I wasn't alive when LBJ was President, but I've taken it upon myself to learn a LOT about the difficulties of passing this kind of legislation. Anybody who cares to research or remember their history will know that in many ways, what we're seeing here is nothing new. The only thing that's different is we have a hell of a lot more noise in the form of cable news and punditry flapping its lips and confusing everybody.

[David Zephyr]

17. LBJ would have a Fairness Doctrine today.

You don't have to have lived during LBJ's years (I did) to understand that period. I didn't live during FDR's time, but I am still a student of his life and administration having visited his home at Hyde Park from way out here in California.

Obama has challenges that LBJ didn't have. And that also goes the other way, too.

But LBJ never tried to appease the right-wing if he knew there was no use in doing so.

As H20 Man wrote above, Obama needs to show the right-wing that he can really play hard ball. LBJ played hard ball.

The right wing, is testing Obama to see IF he is weak. They want his "waterloo". The want to "break him" as Senator DeMint said. What more does Obama need to know?

It's up to us on the Left not just to cheer Obama, but to buck him up to fight, to let him know that we have expectations. At some point, Obama will have to fight them. The sooner he does, the better it will be...or the right-wing will be emboldened even more than they've become since they've sensed weakness.

[David Zephyr]

16. Thoughtful comments.

"history shows it takes more than just sharp elbows to pass historic legislation and that often you simply have to keep plugging away at it." There's legislation and there's, as you say, "historic" legislation. And yes, it does "take more than sharp elbows" to get it done. We agree.

But, as Bill Moyers recently said in his video Op Ed to Obama: "No more Mr. Nice Guy".

Obama needs to now show that he has "sharp elbows". The GOP certainly does.

I'm rooting for him on Wednesday in spite of my many misgivings.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Medicare was called a socialist program by GOP in 1960s

Insurance carriers like Blue Cross-Blue Shield in Indiana, told their employees that they would be out on the street without jobs if Medicare were to pass. As soon as Medicare was enacted, Blue Cross-Blue Shield hired an entire new department with dozens of new employees jut to handle Medicare claims under contract to government. So much for their fear mongering!

Great poem, David.

[David Zephyr]

23. Thanks, IG

I didn't know that about Blue Cross-Blue Shield. In other words, they got on board, huh? Thanks! :hi:

[TomCADem]

22. JFK Campaigned On Medicare In 1960 and Demanded It In A 1962 State of the Union Speech

Yes, Lyndon Johnson continued to campaign for it following the death of JFK in 1963, aided in no small part by grief over the tragic death of JFK, but it is a mistake and a travesty not to give JFK credit for his role in pushing for Medicare. It was a five year process to enact Medicare from 1960 when JFK and LBJ campaigned for it, to 1965 when LBJ signed it.

[David Zephyr]

25. So True.

Truman fought for it. Couldn't get it done. But he fought.
Kennedy also fought for it. Couldn't get it done. But he fought, and yes, I think he even pushed it to Congress three times.
Hillary Clinton fought for it. Couldn't get it done. But she and Bill did fight.
Lyndon got it done --- and this doesn't take away from all who labored for it -- because he was meaner than a junk yard dog and was called the Master of the Senate. He broke arms when he had to.

We need that. Bill Moyers implored Obama this week: "no more Mr. Nice Guy". Look at what happened to Van Jones today. The right-wing won't be content now. They only want to destroy Obama. He needs to understand that they will not go along with anything. They despise him.

[TomCADem]

28. LBJ Built On JFK's Efforts, They Campaigned Together For Goodness Sakes. Same Platform

And, the fact of the matter is that for all the toughness you ascribe to LBJ, the truth of the matter is that Medicare was dramatic reduction in scope from what Harry Truman was seeking. If LBJ was pushing Medicare today, many so-called liberals would be throwing him under the bus for selling out, compromising and abandoning the dream of universal healthcare. Instead, folks now praise his toughness. I am sure 20 years from now, when we have another liberally minded President trying to enact some reform, folks will be comparing him unfavorably to Barack Obama's efforts to reform healthcare. They will say, look at Obama, he enacted healthcare reform within his first year!

So, this is why I find the LBJ comparisons to be ironic. We place him on a pedastal when the history is that the fight for Medicare was a five year process, and LBJ could not have passed Medicare by himself in 1965. Medicare was part of the JFK/LBJ platform. To blame JFK for not getting it done is just misguided. The man was assassinated for god sakes, but I guess that does not matter in your analysis.

I just don't see how you can separate out LBJ from JFK on the subject of Medicare.

[David Zephyr]

30. WTF?

Who "blamed JFK"? No one is separating JFK from Medicare. He tried, as I said, I think three times. You read way too much into things. My response to you was to acknowledge even those you'd not mentioned as well. I agree with you. Hellooo. But don't also take credit away from Lyndon on Medicare. If you haven't read it, you might read "Master of the Senate". An amazing insight into how he operated. And I've hardly placed Johnson on a pedestal here at the DU.

[TomCADem]

32. You Said, "Kennedy ...Couldn't get it done"

I am just reading what you wrote, and I disagree with you. The passage of Medicare was due to both LBJ and JFK's efforts. JFK did get it done, because the Medicare that he campaigned on, fought for while he was alive, and that his Vice President continued to fight for, was passed. So, I absolutely disagree with your claim that Kennedy couldn't get it done, because the passage of Medicare is proof that he did. Of course, JFK needed LBJ to continue the fight, but it is the same program.

So, you have argued that Kennedy couldn't get it done. I say that the passage of Medicare in 1965, which is the culmination of BOTH his efforts and LBJ's efforts, is evidence that JFK did get it done.

[Autumn]

26. Very good,

let us hope President Obama defines himself as well. Thank you.

[David Zephyr]

31. Thanks, Autumn.

:hi:

[PM Martin]

27. k/r

[David Zephyr]

33. Thanks.

:hi:

[CocoaBeachCoco]

29. I doubt you liked Obama to begin with?

:sarcasm: