If President Obama Supports Single Payer, Hard Caps On Greenhouse Gases, But Fails, Are We Happy?

[TomCADem]

I see a lot of posts saying President Obama is not liberal enough, health care reform was not progressive enough because it was not a single payer bill, etc. However, none of these posts explain how such proposals would get passed in the current Congress. Indeed, I recall some folks even suggesting last year that President Obama should demand single payer or a strong public option, and veto anything short of that.

I see this theme in numerous posts, and I can't help but wonder, what was wrong with trying to actually pass a bill through Congress, rather than posturing to play to the base?

Kill the Bill This was being mentioned early on, as some progressives demanded single payer or nothing.

My belief is that President Obama was trying to get the best bill that he could get passes through Congress. An actual bill. Indeed, many folks criticized this, saying that President Obama was simply trying to pass a bill, then declare victory.

My question is what is wrong with passing a bill that is according Paul Krugman a very strong improvement over the status quo? You may disagree with Krugman, but it does shows that some progressive do believe that the bill is an improvement over the status quo.

Do we want a symbolic Presidency where President Obama demands are larger stimulus, and gets nothing, demands that large banks be broken up, and gets nothing, demands that hard caps on greenhouse gases get adopted, but gets nothing.

Now, some folks will say that President Obama has not achieved anything. My response is to stop reading the Fox News talking points. President Obama pretty much saved the U.S. auto industry, and he brought back our banking system back from the brink of total collapse. We have not suffered a 9/11 type terrorist attack. The stimulus prevented a much larger recession.

Yet, we take these accomplishments for granted, and dismiss them as nothing. Seriously?

I think the problem is that many of us take the fact that our bank has not imploded, our auto industry has not disappeared, and we have not suffered a major terrorist attack for granted. You think that is nothing?

Remember the last President? Remember 9/11, Katrina, the mortgage melt down, the U.S. auto industry threatening to disappear, the economy shedding 600,000 jobs a month, and our Federal Government denying the existence of climate change? Thousands of Americans perished due to George Bush's incompetence with respect to 9/11, Katrina, and the Iraq invasion and the mishandling of the Afganistan war.

Yeah, President Obama did nothing. :sarcasm: Perhaps we just need another George W. Bush, tea party toting Republican to place things in perspective. Given the threats of some to quit (assuming they are real), we may get that wish, and once again energized as we yearn for basic competence, and once we get it, we reject it because we wanted a revolution.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Um, didn't Jesus H. Krugman write a blog post excoriating Obama today?

Why, yes, he did. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/he-wasnt-the-one-weve-been-waiting-for/

So it looks like your progressive hero isn't pleased either. Oops.

[TomCADem]

5. Exactly, That's Why I Mention Him. It Shows Krugman Believed The Senate Bill Was Good

Yet, many on this board blame the Bill for causing Democrats to lose, because it was not progressive enough. Again, Krugman thought the bill was an improvement on the status quo, yet look at this Board. There are some who are absolutely convinced that the bill reaked of evil, and was part of a grand conspiracy to screw middle America. Look at the Board today.

Krugman perfectly illustrates my point. What is the progressive consensus?

[Hello_Kitty]

10. I don't know what the consensus is.

But I do know that I didn't elect Paul Krugman to be the arbiter of what it is.

Frankly I consider him to be more of a neo-liberal than a progressive anyway. Though, in fairness, he has recently renounced some of the more odious free trade and trickle down ideas he used to embrace.

[JDPriestly]

14. The bill really did not improve the status quo in California that much.

I believe that our legislature has placed two single payer bills on the governor's desk only to be vetoed.

So, we are a governor's race away from single payer in California. If the economy improves a little, we will be ready for it. So this bill is a setback for us.

[saracat]

2. MemorizeTalking Points much?

[TomCADem]

6. Really? I would love to see some mainstream media talking points similar to mine!

I would be greatly relieved that I am not a voice in the wilderness here. You made my day!

[suzie]

8. Been hating Obama since how long?

[saracat]

15. I am not a fan of stategic ambiguity.Democrats need to become Democrats again.

[suzie]

19. That long, huh?

[villager]

3. He supports watered-down, weak-tea versions of all those and is failing. Are we happy?

n/t

[saracat]

16. +1

[anonymous171]

4. Passing watered down bullshit that won't work hurts everyone in the long run

[ddeclue]

7. That is the ONLY way we are happy.

It is futile to compromise with people who are out to kill you. If you fail to pass a bill but you refuse to compromise your principles the voters will respect you. If you compromise your principles and then fail anyways (as Obama has done) then you they will not.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. If President Obama made Medicare for All into a moral cause to fight for

And relentlessly emphasized the reasonableness and moral imperative of Medicare for All - the public would almost certainly rally behind him and it would be very hard to campaign against - especially if it included tax credits for supplemental insurance.

At the very, very least, we could end up with a very strong public option open to everyone who wants it.

Unfortunately, single-payer of any kind was taken off the table from day one and now we don't even have a weak public option. We have a bill loaded with mandates that are the insurance industries dream, a plan that most Americans don't want.

Last year the battle cry was, "health care for all!" now the battle cry is "okay, we admit that its not a very good bill. But, its better than nothing". Not exactly a winning campaign slogan.

[w4rma]

11. The Public Option is **still** popular. Very popular. Pass it through reconcilation. (nt)

[JDPriestly]

12. Had Obama really pushed for single payer or even a public option

and been unable to get it, that would be OK.

But he set a very low standard for what had to be in an acceptable bill and didn't really fight for any clear or specific bill. That is not a good strategy.

Taking a strong stance in favor of a good policy and then compromising is respectable.

Compromising without first trying to get the best dooms you to mediocrity. People really don't respect leaders who accept mediocrity without a fight.

Obama needs to be truer to his highest ideals and think less about whether other people agree with him.

If he doesn't always get what he wants, everyone will understand. But if, in the first place, he isn't really 100% behind the policies that ordinary people need, then people will feel abandoned and resent it.

Also, specifically with regard to Obama, he needs to find much more expressive ways of letting people know he understands what they need and sincerely wants to help them.

Obama is going to have to get past his abstract passive language and express some urgency about helping the American people, about being on the side of ordinary people.

The easy-going style worked before the economic crisis. It isn't resonating with voters now. That's a hard one for Obama.

[QC]

13. If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle? n/t

[laughingliberal]

17. I actually just posted a reply in another thread on this:

<snip>I believe President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right." It's not that people are uninterested in who's right or wrong, it's that people will only follow leaders who seem to actually believe in what they are doing. Democrats have missed this essential fact. <snip>

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/relieved.php?ref=fpblg

I believe if the President had come out fighting for the right (correct) policies he would have won even if he'd lost. People would have respected him for sticking being strong and standing by his principles. Republicans would have looked bad for obstructing. Compromise is for after you've put up a hell of a fight for what you really wanted, not before the fight has even started. Doable is good but it's not the starting point in the fight, damn it!

[Mojambo]

18. Happier. n/t