The two REAL prevalent misconceptions on DU

[CTLawGuy]

1. The president is some sort of king and Congress is his rubber stamp.

REALITY: The president is not a king; he's not even the legislative branch in our system. (I find it amusing that people get outraged that Congress, the ACTUAL legislative branch, is allowed to write our laws). Obama's biggest value to us is that he won't veto progressive legislation. So ask yourself would Obama veto the public option? If the answer is no, which you know it is, then get him a public option through Congress.

I'm sure the rejoinder to this is "why doesn't he twist their arms like LBJ did to get a public option?" First, LBJ got Medicare, but only for old people. I'm sure the extreme left of his time called him a corporate sellout for not getting it for everybody and wondered aloud why he didn't twist their arms like FDR did. Second, in LBJ's time, the opposition party was not solely dedicated to bringing him down at the expense of any beneficial legislation. Medicare (or the watered down version of it that treats everyone under 65 like garbage by leaving them at the mercy of the corporations) got significant Republican support. Therefore, it was a lot easier for LBJ than for Obama since LBJ didn't need every single senator in his party, which he did not get BTW. Obama now needs more than every single senator unless Reid plans to use reconciliation for everything for the rest of his term. Third, with the preceding in mind, Obama cannot afford to alienate senators by playing hardball, since every one he loses has to be replaced by a Republican in order to get the 60 votes. He needs good relationships with moderate Democrats in order to save his agenda. As much as this sucks for us, this is the reality.

2. The people support the public option so therefore it should be easy to pass and if we acted like Republicans we would pass it.

REALITY: One good thing about being a conservative is that you don't need a lot of brainpower. It's not difficult to enact simplistic ideas like deregulation and low taxes. Liberals, on the other hand, need a bit more intelligence. Our ideas are complex and novel because they are about using government to improve all of our lives. The more complex an idea is, the more room there is for disagreement and the more room there is for disagreements that become deal breakers and that derail the whole implementation of the idea. Health reform is an EXTREMELY complex idea with lots of places to disagree: mandate or no mandate, single payer, public option, state or national exchange, extend Medicare etc. Add to that an ideologically diverse party and the fact that you need almost ALL of them on board and passing some kind of reform becomes very difficult.

Contrast this with the Republican experience: ideologically narrow party, simplistic ideas ("cut taxes") with few places to disagree, conservatives on the other side tempted to join you. Passing Republican legislation is just inherently easier. Add the fear mongering surrounding 9/11 and you have a recipe for a dictatorial administration. The bottom line is, you can't expect that Obama can replicate what Bush did.

Yes, the people support a public option, but they didn't elect enough members of congress that agreed with them. So either in 2010 they have to do that, or decide it's just not that important to them.

[DCBob]

1. Precisely...

Well said and logical, but many here still wont buy it. They are just as blind as the hard-core conservatives but in the other direction.

[JTFrog]

2. K&R for facts vs. tinfoil paranoia. n/t

[pnorman]

3. K & R!

So that I can come back to this later for careful reading. At first glance, I find myself in general agreement.

[Bobbie Jo]

4. K&R for TRUTH.

:kick:

[cornermouse]

5. Hyperbole and inflation from a lawyer?

Quelle surprise. :eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

41. nice cogent, fact based, response

:eyes:

[cornermouse]

43. Like I said hyperbole and exaggeration = lawyer

Call it a stock in trade.

[CTLawGuy]

51. like I said, or implied

ad hominem = no intelligent response to the arguments presented.

[Moochy]

44. Agreed

[MadHound]

6. Two things

LBJ was famous for being able to twist arms and play hardball, and he did so on a number of pieces of legislation, not just Medicare, but also Civil Rights Act and others. Obama, he isn't even trying. I would respect him a lot more if he came out swinging, telling the Senate to go ahead and filibuster, then take to the bully pulpit and beat them about the head and shoulders for their obstructionism. But he's not even trying, instead he continues to water down an already weak bill, all in the name of some mythical bipartisanship that he should have realized a long time ago isn't going to happen.

Our leaders are elected to represent our wishes, at least that is the theory behind a republican form of government. We elected a Democratically controlled Congress and a Democrat to the WH, but of which either stated that they were in support of the public option, or that were supposedly open to the idea and willing to work for it. This hasn't been the case, instead they have caved time and again. Asking the public to elect enough members to Congress that support the PO is simply blaming the victim. It is past time for our so called representatives to actually do their job and represent the will of their constituents instead of the will of their corporate masters. Wanting to pin the blame for their failure on the voters is blaming the victim, and a transparent ploy for the electorate to keep playing that "kick the football" game again in 2010. Instead of rewarding their failure, it is time that these people realized that there is a price for failing to follow the will of their constituents. That is, after all, how our government is supposed to work.

[DCBob]

8. Obama was elected largely because of his commitment to bipartisanship and ending gridlock..

Obviously that has not worked out so well so far but he shouldn't give up and he isn't giving up. The alternative is worse. This country needs to come together or we are doomed.

[MadHound]

9. Umm, no, he was elected because he was promising change, hope, progress, and being NotBush

Yes, he stated he was looking to be more bipartisan, but when it becomes painfully obvious that bipartisanship can't work, he needs to make the right choice and move on. Instead he is doing more harm than good in this country by continuing to pursue bipartisanship. For instance, the stimulus bill became a tax cut bill(forty percent of the bill is tax cuts) all because he pursued bipartisanship. HCR has become a hollow mockery of the word "reform" in part because he pursued bipartisanship. The same has happened with the latest jobs cut bill.

It is time for these so called Democrats to put bipartisanship behind them and do what is best for this country.

[DCBob]

11. To me hope and change meant bringing the country together... remember his famous line..

"there are no red states or blue states, just the United States" -- which he used in almost every speech during the campaign. I hope he does not give up on this goal because we need it now more than ever.

[MadHound]

17. Well, that's what it meant to you

It meant something different to everybody else, and when one says they want to change what is happening in Washington, they generally don't think that the change that is being promised is going to be for the worse. Yet that is what has happened.

[DCBob]

27. That's what it meant to alot of people especailly Independents..

Don't forget Obama's favorite book is still "Team of Rivals".

[ClassWarrior]

19. Bringing the country together and "bipartisanship" are two distinctly different things.

NGU.

[DCBob]

28. Sure they are different but closely related and one affects the other.

IMO.

[ClassWarrior]

29. Hogwash. If that were true, Congress would have passed Medicare For All long ago with...

...a super majority.

NGU.

[DCBob]

30. Horsefeathers... all I am saying is that gridlock in Congress affects the attitude of the voters...

and the attitude of the voters affects Congress. Obvious right? Or maybe I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Bringing the country together and "bipartisanship" are two distinctly different things.

NGU.

[Jennicut]

12. How soon people forget...LBJ had moderate Repubs vote with him when conservative Dems wouldn't.

Summary of Party Affiliation on Medicare Vote:

Senate:
Democrats - 57 yea, 7 nay, 4 not voting
Republicans - 13 yea, 17 nay, 2 not voting

House:
Democrats - 237, 48, 8
Republicans - 70, 68, 2

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/tally65.html


LBJ was good at twisting arms...but had something to work with. Obama has the current Senate, full of idiot Rethugs and crappy Dems.

[MadHound]

16. Sorry, but Obama isn't even trying to twist arms,

Nor is he putting up any sort of fight. Instead he is immediately going back to his fallback position, weaken an already compromised bill.

It would be nice to see the president fight for something, at least once.

[Jennicut]

21. I agree he has been weak. But LBJ still had more to work with.

[MadHound]

22. Yes, he had more to work with in terms of numbers,

But I would be more supportive of Obama if he at least put up a good fight, even if he lost. But he's not doing that, he simply continues to cave and cave without putting up much more than hot air.

In many ways I think that this is reflective of his inexperience. LBJ had spent a long time in the Senate and knew where the bodies were buried, so to speak. Obama had one term in the Senate, and other than making nice speeches, he wasn't much of a force, or very forceful.

[Jennicut]

23. Ya think?!

LBJ had way more experience. He wanted to run the Senate as VP after all, but was denied that.
Obama will either learn or be defeated. He has 3 year left to get his bearings.

[cornermouse]

26. Actually, he has less than a year.

And as for us voters? I guess we're flat out of luck either way.

[PSzymeczek]

39. Plus, LBJ was

Senate Majority Leader for several years, and twisted lots of arms in that capacity. Harry Reid needs to start channeling LBJ, too.

[phleshdef]

25. And numbers are pretty much all that matters. LBJ was a prick with a lot of votes.

Thats just the historical truth.

[johnaries]

45. You should check today's news.

He has played "nice guy" up to now, but he has released the "whip" to get Dems in line. The first target - Kuchinich.

Personally, I like Kuch. But he is the Ron Paul of the Dems. When it's this important, he has to be willing to compromise just like the Founding Fathers did.

And if you don't know what I'm talking about, the entire Constitution was a product of compromise. Look it up.

[FormerDittoHead]

56. Yes. One major misconception frequently seen here at DU...

The President has no power to influence Congress. - what bullshit.

I'm not a wonk. I don't know the in's and out's, but after seeing Bush get everything he wanted short of privatizing Social Security, I'm not one to swallow this fairy tale that the President must do what Obama is doing - sitting back, doing nothing but making some speeches and having to accept whatever Congress gives him.

FWIW, I wish Obama would stop giving away things (100 million for a hospital in Connecticut, Nebraska's Medicaid exclusion, etc) and start YANKING things.

[bertman]

58. THANK YOU, FormerDittoHead. You nailed it.

[ret5hd]

7. Oh yeah, medicare for all is SO complex.

:eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

52. well then why didn't the glorious LBJ,

who is SOOO much more awesomer than Obama, pass Medicare for all if it was so SIMPLE?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. No, the real misconception here is that being an effective president=being a king

Obama seems to have no leadership ability
Obama is perfect
thus leadership ability must be some sort of imperfection, like being a dictator

DU-QED

[tekisui]

13. Poor little Obama. The most hand-tied Preseident ever.

His ineffectiveness is ALWAYS someone else's fault. Poor guy. :cry:

[HughMoran]

14. Reality dose

There's a difference between the one propelling rhetoric and polls, and the rubber hitting the road - good post.

[MadHound]

18. Trouble is, Obama hasn't even started the car yet

We handed him a win, with a stacked Congress. All we have seen so far is catering to corporations and pandering to 'Pugs. It would be nice if he would, at least once, think of the folks who brought him to this dance.

[depakid]

15. The reality is that if the shoe were on the other foot- Republicans would get it done

The rest is just another round of excuses that people are fed up with, which is why you're staring down big loses in 2010.

[harun]

20. +1, Obama and Reid can cut a deal with the problem Senators.

Give em tort reform or whatever other nonsense they want, then get it done.

[Number23]

31. K&R

[Cha]

32. THank you, CTLawGuy!

[creeksneakers2]

33. Giving Obama the credit he deserves

He's doing everything he can. You are right.

[DFab420]

34. K&R

Bout time some had a level head about all this..

[angelicwoman]

35. Why, then, did he promise to pass health reform with a public option?

Shouldn't he have warned the people that he could only do this if Congress played along?

[butterfly77]

37. Why do we have republicons in our party pretending ..

to be Dems?

[annabanana]

36. Excellent post.

Thank you for some well written clarification for those who are a bit confused by the process.

[moondust]

38. K/R!!

[andym]

40. Prime minister is a better modern comparison

In most parliamentary systems a PM can pass what they propose, because they only need the same legislative majority that makes them PM in the first place.

[Moochy]

42. K&U

Excuses

[hulka38]

46. I can only think of Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny when he says, "Everything that guy just said is

bullshit".

Isn't it interesting that in this wordy explanation of why the people aren't going to get what the they want, nowhere in this formula do I see a mention of the big pink elephant - CEOs of big insurance descending on DC who would sooner lose a gold plated testicle before allowing a PO to pass. Not a mention. Unbelievable. As if they're not even a factor. But 9/11 is. This is how I know you're not considering your argument from a serious perspective.

If you want to compare apples with oranges LBJ was continuing FDR's legacy like no other president had. Liberals or "extreme left" (Hannity?!) were happy by and large with the Great Society. What they hated was Nam. LBJ helped the poor, advanced civil rights, and got socialized medicine to a large segment of our population that needed it most. Nixon, Clinton and Carter weren't able to advance the ball any further. Now comes Obama with his powerful mandate for change, a large house majority and an 18 seat margin in the senate? He doesn't need 60 for a PO. He needs 50 and some nuts. Don't have to be walnuts. Peanuts will do just fine.

Your second point is just mush. It's not that complicated and it certainly isn't EXTREMELY complex. We need a government run program to compete with the private companies in collusion to introduce competition, bring prices down and give access to all and give the for profiteers something to be very concerned about. That's about the extent of it. Simple concept. It's a matter will the people we sent to represent us fight for it? Or, how broken is our system?

"The bottom line is, you can't expect that Obama can replicate what Bush did. Yes, the people support a public option, but they didn't elect enough members of congress that agreed with them. So either in 2010 they have to do that, or decide it's just not that important to them."
It sounds like you're against using reconciliation for the current bill or the PO or both. Is that true. You are against Democrats using reconciliation?
If the current bill can be brought forth through reconciliation then clearly there isn't a principled argument against voting on a PO through reconciliation. We don't know that there aren't enough votes to pass a PO thru rec. because it hasn't been tried and it won't be tried. Why? Because we both know that it will either pass or there will be holy Hell to pay in November. No, Obama won't veto a PO. He can't. That doesn't mean he wants to see it on his desk.

[CTLawGuy]

53. How many things wrong with your post...

You have the "blame corporations" conspiracy theory argument. If health insurance companies really owned the president and congress, we would not be talking about ANY reform, because they don't WANT any reform--they like the system just the way it is. They'd have the economy as the PERFECT excuse to not do anything. And why are the Republicans against reform? Are THEY on the side of the people?

And another excuse for LBJ leaving everyone under 65 to the corporate wolves. I thought Medicare for all was "simple"? Why didn't the great LBJ just keep twisting arms until they passed the simple no-brainer Medicare for All? There wasn't even a permanent filibuster against him!

Also, you do realize that you can't just pass ANYTHING by reconciliation? You know what the Byrd Rule is?

Also, I don't think we need anyone to work "in collusion" with insurance companies. "Collusion," which is working together in an anti-competitive way, usually to fix prices, is not an integral part of health care reform.

I think that pretty much everyone in this fight disagrees with you that HCR is a "simple" issue. I gave you the myriad areas for disagreement in the OP.

And nowhere did I say I was against reconciliation. I am in favor of it for what can actually get passed through it. Right now only 37 senators are in favor of a PO through reconciliation. This needs to go up by 13 before it will do any good.

And finally, you sure nailed Obama :eyes: He doesn't want a public option because he LOOVES the korps and he's a black man who NATURALLY grew up in the lap of privilege with utter contempt for little people. The fact that he was a community organizer sure proves his love for corporate money!

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Fucking LIEBERMAN campaigned on being for the public option in 2006.

So don't tell me people "didn't elect enough members of congress that agreed with them." I'm not aware of any Dem Congresscritters who campaigned against a PO in '06 or '08.

[CTLawGuy]

54. yes

because you're supposed to be FOR anything you don't campaign against. That makes sense :eyes:

Lieberman also said he wanted to bring our troops home as well. He said a lot of things he didn't mean to get reelected in liberal CT. It's only because Republicans abandoned their candidate to support him that he won.

[Moochy]

48. Anyone have a CLUE where the PO met its (un)timely demise?

Did we ever find out who attended Cheney's energy meetings er I mean President Obama's healthcare industry negotiation meetings?

[CTLawGuy]

55. umm

when Lieberman said he would filibuster the bill if it had a PO?

[Moochy]

57. That's right obama's mentor .

Such a functioning awesome democracy! Go team DLC.

[CTLawGuy]

60. you mean his mentor assigned to him

by the leadership?

[Moochy]

61. Yeah the one he endorsed over Lamont!

That's the guy.

[CTLawGuy]

62. hey you're right

but he supported Lamont in the end.

[NYC_SKP]

49. Hoo-rah! K and R n/t

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

50. wish i could recommend more then once

great post

[bertman]

59. Ha ha ha. Bullshit. 1. Emperor Bush was able to get the legislation he favored passed despite

having to do it by reconciliation on numerous occasions and by Imperial fiat (signing statements) on others. And then there's also the part about loading the Federal bureaucracy with his right-wing minions so he could ensure that his agenda was met. He didn't give a flying fuck about the Democratic positions on issues, he simply steamrolled them. But, our Conciliator-in-Chief wants to include the Republicans in everything and make them all happy. How's that worked out?

2. No attempt was even made to support the Public Option from the git-go (thank you, Rahm and Zeke). No hard line was taken that would force the Republicans and Blue Dawg Turds to negotiate to lower the bar. The Obama machine was there, ready and willing, to go to work for the President and his campaign promises but he left us behind with his corporate kowtowing.

[PurityOfEssence]

63. Why this is misleading

The President is an executive who can stand up and request specific policies to be enacted, rather than exhort vagueness and hide behind Congress for not coming up with something to his/her liking. Leaders get out in front of things, rather than being some kind of prep cook deciding whether the particular delivery of produce is up to snuff. There are some hazards to this, and they're why our President is so gun-shy of this approach: it means being specific, TAKING SIDES--which means not being loved by everybody--on contentious issues and risking failure. What's most telling about Rahm's arm-twisting is that he's spent considerable effort soft-soaping the right and centrists, watering down health care and the stimulus and STILL not garnering any votes, votes that aren't actually necessary. The net result is flaccid legislation that isn't as effective and STILL isn't bipartisan.

As for point 2, if Rahm and our President put out half the effort reining in blue dogs and centrists that they do courting reactionaries, it COULD be in the bills and would become law. This takes a willingness to make enemies (which is idiotic, since the right hates them regardless of what they do) and a will to get tough with wayward members of the party. We'll never know, but if it had been firmly articulated that a public option would be pay-go fiscally solvent, then the insurance companies never would have had a leg to stand on by bleating about unfairness in having to compete with big evil gummint. Obama is SO weak-kneed about doing ANYTHING that's not profit driven and done in the private sector that it boggles the mind, even if the question of how corporatist he really is is moot. Witness the stimulus and the pathetic, flimsy pride that 90% of it was to be done through the private sector, even as the jackals jeer "socialism" with every slobbery breath.

To recap: he has MUCH more power vested in him by the Constitution and attendant tradition, but it necessitates forthright willingness to take stands and confidence in one's proposals, and a public option would have been a very viable possibility if someone had rented a spine or if the alleged vertebrate ACTUALLY wanted this fail-safe institution.