Obama's failure? He doesn't attempt to change the narrative.

[ClassWarrior]

He simply accepts the premises of the RW power elite, and begins dealing from there. And then expects us - whose value system is based on a whole different sent of narratives - to be happy.

Take the health care battle, for instance. Going in, he said, single-payer Medicare-for-all was off the table. Why? Because the RW overlords would never accept it. In other words, whole-hearted acceptance of the RW narrative, with no recognition that the public acceptance could be used to pressure the the Republicon hacks.

Thus, Obama made no attempt to change the narrative, to educate the public on the value of Medicare-for-all (or even his own public option), to use his bully pulpit to shape the debate. He simply acquiesced to the RW narrative.

The same's true with the billionaire bailout. Rather than even make an attempt to educate the voting public on the damage that this RW greed will do, he simply bought into the RW narrative and made a deal based on those flawed premises.

Yes, Congress makes the laws, but a good President sets the tone of the debate.

NGU.

[truedelphi]

1. Is that some sort of failure on his part?

Or is that the assignment the Powers that Be dictate to him?

[QC]

2. All indications are that he does not challenge that narrative

because he generally believes in it.

[ClassWarrior]

8. For the sake of argument, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to...

...adopt false RW frames without even knowing it. They've spent close to 50 year ingraining them in our brains. See Prof. George Lakoff's latest. This is should be a moral debate, not a material one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/untellable-truths_b_794832.html

But yes, you're right, appearances are damning.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

45. .

[ClassWarrior]

47. .

[KoKo]

33. He's what we have as a President and if we don't want Supreme Court to Go More Right ..we Have to

Keep him. Obama is all that we have between the Tea Party and Us. We elected him...he is working for us ..even if it is in "Mysterious Ways" that makes us want to get out on the streets and become anarchists. Obama is holding that passion off with his calm and collected way of governing.

We can't see now...how he's had to compromise to keep us safe and our enconomy secure. But, in two years America should be back in solvency and way ahead of Europe. We should be thankful for "very small favors."

[ClassWarrior]

43. It's not up to "us." It's up to him. "We" are not the problem. The independents are.

NGU.

[ProSense]

3. "Going in, he said, single-payer Medicare-for-all was off the table."

As I said before:

"Single-payer Medicare-for-all" was not Obama's plan so why would he change the narrative to that?

Obama's narrative isn't what anyone want it to be, it is what he wants it to be. He has no reason to change his narrative to what someone else wants it to be. His plan was the health care reform package that passed, albeit without the public option he desired. His plan was not to sacrifice the health care bill because the public option was not included.

[ClassWarrior]

6. "Obama's narrative isn't what anyone want it to be, it is what he wants it to be..."

"...He has no reason to change his narrative to what someone else wants it to be."

Sort of like a dictator?

NGU.

[EFerrari]

10. Which tosses out all that rhetoric about being responsive. That's right. n/t

[ProSense]

11. Responsive

is not kneejerk. This health care bill was supported by everyone from Al Franken to Russ Feingold to John Kerry to Bernie Sanders, and many of it's provisions were supported by the majority of Americans. The majority did not want to see the bill scrapped. The majority did not expect the President to change his narrative to single-payer.

Responsive is not do what a few want regardless of his better judgment. That is not how it works.

[whathehell]

13. The vast majority of Americans were in favor of a public option..Sorry.

The democrats you mentioned only voted for it because it was all he would offer or fight for.

[Recursion]

16. And providers were basically unanimously against it

Including the ones who were for single payer. And, yes, hospitals' and doctors' opinions did carry a lot of weight in this debate.

A public option without a dedicated revenue source was a horrible idea, and we need to get over it.

[EFerrari]

19. The "revenue source" was handed over to the insurance companies

and there is no denying that.

[Recursion]

20. Name me one plan -- ANY plan...

... that had a public option with a dedicated, untouchable revenue source. The "dalit source", as I call it.

Without that, a public option condemns us all to Medicaid.

[EFerrari]

22. And we can't all be condemned to Medicaid. That would be bad.

:)

[Recursion]

23. No, we really cant. The providers would all go bankrupt.

Have you read the OP about people being denied transplants and other shenanigans on Medicaid? This really isn't the model we want our health care to follow.

[EFerrari]

25. The model is fine. The oversight sucks.

You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Recursion]

29. No, Medicaid's model is not "fine" at all. It's absolutely fundamentally broken

In several ways, the worst being that it's paid for out of general revenues. If they can cut it, they will cut it.

[EFerrari]

30. And that is true of the predation on any of our social programs.

That doesn't make Medicaid special, that makes our government predatory.

[Recursion]

31. Ding ding ding ding ding! Now, why do you pretend that's not true?

Medicaid is the reason that the people who are nervous about government involvement in healthcare are nervous.

[displacedvermoter]

49. People are nervous about government involvement in

healthcare because of constant attack from people screaming "socialism" on TV talk shows across the land. People like me, who have been in the military, understand the concept of 'socialized" medicine very well, know it works when properly run and overseen, and are not nervous. But I guess if you call the medical system used by our armed forces socialist, lots of people would deny it, mainly people never so covered.

[whathehell]

36. So why bother with public opinion at all?....Just let corporations decide..Oh wait...

That, especially with the citizens united ruling, it what's happening anyway.

May as well just forget voting at all.:puke:

You "get over it"...Some of us don't care for a One Party Corporatocracy.

[EFerrari]

21. And of course you know that most Americans wanted the public option and more.

That's not "a few". You can't redefine the majority into a few "knee jerks" and retain any cred whatsoever.

[Recursion]

24. The vast majority of Americans don't know what the hell a "public option" is

Let's be more realistic here.

[EFerrari]

26. Do a search. The majority of Americans wanted this bill to go further

than it went.

[mtnsnake]

4. Well said. nt

[Blue Owl]

5. Instead of extending the Bu$h tax plan

How about creating the Obama tax plan?

Does anyone really think that Obama can't come up with a better plan than Bu$h?

[Recursion]

18. He articulated the Obama tax plan very well, and fought for it

1. Keep the tax cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000, and families earning less than $250,000

2. Extend the MWP tax credit

3. Expand the EITC

4. Drop the tax cuts for individuals earning more than $200,000, and families earning more than $250,000

5. Extend the college tuition tax credit.

That was his plan. He was very, very clear about it. You can't in honesty deny that.

That plan wasn't going to pass. So he negotiated one that kept #1 and #5, waffled on #3, lost #2 and #4, and added unemployment extensions.

Does anyone really think that Obama can't come up with a better plan than Bu$h?

OK, I really have trouble accepting your sincerity here. I know you actually haven't forgotten that Obama wanted the tax plan I outlined above, right?

[midnight]

7. The power elite all thrive off of Regan economics and that is the connection.

[EFerrari]

9. Maybe he doesn't because he doesn't want to.

He seems perfectly comfortable speaking in their terms.

[ClassWarrior]

12. See post #8.

:hi: you.

NGU.

[EFerrari]

17. Hey, my friend.

I agree that speaking in the default terms (because that's what they become, between the opposition and their hold on our media) shouldn't be a basis to ding anyone. That's our national vernacular, isn't it?

But it isn't as if Obama is using their terms to get his point across, as far as I can tell. He usually agrees with their point or with some version of it. It's like he wants to be a less toxic Republican.

Maybe that's all a mainstream national Democrat can do right now. That's the rub for me, anyway, right there.

[ClassWarrior]

37. I hear ya, my friend. But whatever Obama's intent, the good guys still need...

...to learn better messaging. So it's a message worth repeating.

NGU.

[EFerrari]

41. Agreed. n/t

[whathehell]

14. You are correct. I speak for many in saying he's been a huge disappointment so far. n/t

[villager]

15. that's very well put. For all his "articulation," he hasn't articulated a new vision, or future

or, in its baldest, most-reductionist, "All-American" terminology, enunciated a "new way of doing business."

Hence his being rhetorically checkmated by the far right at every turn...

[vi5]

27. Excellent summation....

I've said the same thing all along. Every trope that has been dished out by the right about what is "true" and "correct" about the country has been accepted as gospel truth and as the starting point for everything Obama has done.

Private sector>public
Social security is in trouble and needs to be rescued.
Strength means the use of military power
Free Market works best
Tax cuts stimulate growth

and on and on and on.

[ClassWarrior]

48. They've been working on that for close to 50 years. It's time we start.

NGU.

[NorthCarolina]

28. He wouldn't start with the 'premises of the RW power elite' if he wasn't with them. nt

[ClassWarrior]

32. Are you familiar with "framing," as articulated by George Lakoff? See...

...post #8.

And like I said, nonetheless, it looks awful damning.

NGU.

[BlueIris]

34. He lives with many failures. Not attempting to change the narrative is a cosmetic one.

The rest, like, say, clearly not making a plan to govern this nation before he was elected to, you know, lead it, are much more serious.

[ClassWarrior]

40. Clearly making a plan, leading and developing the message frames to support it should all...

...be one and the same in this media-intensive day and age.

Don't you agree?

NGU.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

38. This article published in Harpers

back in June 2009, is more relevant today, almost a year and a half later.

Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again.

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562

[WiffenPoof]

39. Well...I agree with your assessment.

In addition...I've heard people say here before that Obama is not a dictator and can't act unilaterally. He may not be a dictator but he seems to act unilaterally when negotiating policy. I'm speaking of his inability or unwillingness to keep the Speaker or others in his party in the loop.

-PLA

[ClassWarrior]

42. Check post #3 to see that attitude in action...

"Obama's narrative isn't what anyone want it to be, it is what he wants it to be. He has no reason to change his narrative to what someone else wants it to be."

Whahhhhhhh??? :wow:

NGU.

[DainBramaged]

44. What debate? There is no debate, the tax cuts are sealed in stone.

[ClassWarrior]

46. There's always a debate. And the sooner we start shaping it...

...the sooner we'll end nonsense like the Billionaire Bailout.

NGU.