Doing a little score keeping on the Biggies (don't sweat the small stuff)

[Tom Rinaldo]

The Domestic Edition.

Near the start of Obama's administration some of us said: "He's bending over too far to accommodate Republicans". Others said "No, he is trying to heal America and setting them up to look bad for being such spoil sports if they don't cooperate."

When the battle really began over Obama's health insurance reform program some of us said: "He's not making a strong case for the Public Option, he isn't really fighting for it and he won't even point proudly to Medicare as a model for what the government is capable of." Others said "He knows exactly what he's doing - he has a strategy, he promised not to sign legislation without it."

When the budget deal was reached with Republicans at the end of the 2010 lame duck Congress some of us said: "Extending the Bush tax cuts as part of that deal was a huge mistake with predictable devastating consequences, Republicans will now begin insisting on huge budget cuts to government spending to shrink the ballooning deficit that the Bush tax cuts continue to be a prime reason for them growing. They learned holding the economy ransom works." Others of us said "Obama had no real choice, the Republicans were holding the economy ransom, plus he got some important legislation passed in the deal as well. All the tax cut stimulus that will result from this deal will now help drop unemployment before the 2012 elections and likely assure a Democratic victory then with clearer sailing for the Democratic agenda to follow."

When the danger of a U.S. government default if the deficit ceiling isn't raised started looming, and details about Administration negotiations with Congressional Republicans started emerging, some of us said "This isn't looking good, Obama is calling the safety net "entitlement programs" and appears willing to put them on the table for cuts in exchange for Republicans agreeing to some revenue increases in a deal". Others of us said "He didn't use those words, there is no proof of him actually thinking that. Obama will never allow real benefit cuts in these negotiations, just minor reforms in how those programs work that would only effect upper income brackets and/or actually increase benefits for most Americans who depend on them through some as yet unnamed improvements. Obama is masterfully calling the Republicans bluff and this will be a Democratic victory."


OK that's one person's view of some key decision points in Obama's Administration that have divided many DUers over how they went down and the real or likely consequences of them. What are yours? How does your informal score board look?

[pscot]

1. When he appointed Summers and Geithner

some of us pointed out the they were tools of the bankers and complicit in the frenzy of deregulation that set us up for a fall. No, no, we were told. He needs guys who understand how the system works if he's going to bring the banksters to heel.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. i think that a worthy addition.

It's hard for anyone with an opinion to summarize both sides fairly, but I think you did pretty well with that one. The thing is, some stuff does only get clearer in hindsight. Often good arguments can be made in any instance for both sides at the time. Patterns are a little easier to identify. Sometimes it's important to look at the forest rather than the hard to figure tree right in front of us.

[pscot]

3. We are certainly deep in the woods

right now.

[JoePhilly]

4. Let's take the PO .... I have a challange for you ...

Let's pretend YOU are the President.

The GOP has 40 Senators who will NEVER vote for the PO.

You have the potential to get 60 votes. But there are all of those "blue dogs" to convince to vote YES. Let's say there are 5 of them.

And then, let's pretend that you (somehow) convinced 4 of them to vote yes.

There is only ONE left .... Joe Lieberman.

Please explain SPECIFICALLY, how you, as President will get Joe to vote YES.

Remember these 3 facts about Joe.

1) He campaigned against you in the 2008 election.
2) He is nicknamed "the Senator from Aetna"
3) He is NOT running for re-election again

Now ... tell us how you flip Joe from No to YES. And remember to be specific. Don't say "leadrership" or "bully pulpit" over and over. Some specific manner to get Joe to vote yes.

btw ... the BEST answer I have ever received to this challange ... "Obama should use the DOJ to blackmail the bluedogs", that one has been used by two different respondents to this challenge.

Maybe you, as President, can do better?

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I'll do you a litle better

I had a Kos Diary entry that got over 800 replies titled "9 Ways Obama Didn't Fight". It is all about what went down over the Public Option. Debate on the page was hot and furious and I added many comments of my own in reply to those made by others. It's long, 11 paragragraphs. I don't want to divert this here thread into a detailed rehashing of those arguments now so I won't copy it all here. The arguments to an extent are interlocking, sort of like real life, so I can't just pull one thing from it for you and have it be the same. If you want to read it here is the link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/23/818333/-Nine-Ways-Obama-Didnt-Fight?showAll=yes&via=blog_736067

I'll point out a problem with your framing though, it doesn't come into focus until a lot of water had already flowed under the bridge. Early in the process, had Obama fully engaged the public and directly mobilized his base to brand the Public Option in an optimal manner (Hint: Directly compare it to Medicare in every way possible) it was not so certain that no Republican would have backed it. Obama allowed the tea party types at staged town hall meeting invasions to define the Public Option in the public mind instead - making it much more difficult for a handful of more moderate republicans to possibly be associated with it. You simply can not start the discussion at the point in time you chose. Different choices effect strategic options.

I'll pull one example out of context for you though, only becasue I suspect it is the type strategy the Republican Party would have used - in fact they did use it. When Republicans grew frustrated with then minority Democrats in the Senate being able to fillibuster Judicial nominations they promised to use the "nuclear option" that would eliminate either parties ability to conduct fillibusters in the future. Many Democrats believed Republicans just might actually do it and became alarmed over the prospect. In the end a small unofficial bipartisan committee of Senators worked out a deal of sorts that took the nuclear threat off the table, and slowed down Democratic use of fillibusters.

Obviously had the nuclear option actually been evoked, Republicans would only have needed 51 votes to pass almost any legislation in the Senate. But simply threatening to do so got the job done for them instead. A compromise was reached. Flash forward to when Republicans were the Senate minority in 2009. The very last thing that Republicans wanted to lose in early 2009 was their ability to bottle up Obama's legislative agenda in the Senate. There was real potential leverage for Obama and Democrats in that. Especially if Obama had been pushing hard for a really robust public option all along, while allowing progressive Democrats make the case for single payer instead. A compromise that would have included a weak public option instead while agreeing to the nuclear option off the table in the Senate could have been the result.

Like I said, the essay is 9 ways Obama didn't fight. Check it out if you want.

[JoePhilly]

6. So you ignored the challange ... but I will still play ...

You wanted Obama to invoke the nuclear option. Ok ... how does he do that, exactly?

Reid and the Senate Dems would have been needed to even threaten it. Obama could not make it happen.

And who do we meet again, the bluedogs. They can simply say that they are protecting the Dems from a future in which Dems can't filibuster the GOP. They don't really care about that, but that framing is more than enough cover for them.

As for the town halls ... Obama was going to stop "corporate funded" tea party clowns from going to town halls and screaming like maniacs? How exactly?

Legislation requires VOTES. And unless you can explain SPECIFICALLY how you, as president, would have obtained them, its all conjecture.

In almost every case you cite, you need Leiberman and Nelson (and that assumes that you have all of the others in the bag). Unless you can explain SPECIFICALLY how you flip those two, you have nothing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. What I essentially said to you is that I don't want this thread hijacked to another discussion

And I didn't ignore your challenge. I gave you a link to a very long discussion containing my full opinions about what Obama might have done differently and why that might have worked - and said there was an interplay there between ideas that are hard to evaluate singly but should be looked at in different combinztions. By the way I didn't say Obama could have stopped corporate funded tea party invasions at town hall meetings, I said he could have acted to prevent them from having the chance to frame the Public Option from their ideological position in the public mind. Those Town Hall Meetings took place during the Summer recess. Better efforts at preemptively establishing positive framing for the Public Option could have been done before then - I get into details in that Diary.

But let's look again at what I said in the OP you responded to:


"When the battle really began over Obama's health insurance reform program some of us said: "He's not making a strong case for the Public Option, he isn't really fighting for it and he won't even point proudly to Medicare as a model for what the government is capable of." Others said "He knows exactly what he's doing - he has a strategy, he promised not to sign legislation without it."

I did not render an opinion there as to whether the Public Option was ultimately obtainable. I summarized opinions that some of us held at that time over how Obama was handling his effort to have it included in the final legislation. This was at the same time that Obama was saying that the legislation he signed would contain a public option. That means he was either knowingly lying about its prospects - which is not what I claim happened, or that Obama still thought it likely he could win its conclusion - even knowing full well the composition of the U.S. Senate at the time, includijng Blue Dogs, Republicans and Joe Lieberman. So strategic considerations about the way Obama was trying to win inclusion of the P.O. at that time were still relevent. Things like observations that "he won't even point proudly to Medicare as a model for what the government is capable of."

[JoePhilly]

8. You did not need to worry about hijacking the thread.

All you needed to do is explain SPECIFICALLY how you get Lieberman to vote YES on a public option.

Your responses are abstract and off point. You want to claim that Obama didn't do something he should have done. So you describe how he needed to "fight", or "point proudly to Medicare" ... so on.

Which of those makes Joe vote YES??

And so ... either you have a specific way to get Lieberman to vote YES, or you do not.

You clearly don't have one.

But don't feel bad.

No one else has had one either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Actually the thread is a series of snap shots of how Obama's actions were viewed on DU at the time

The theme is which line of thinking about how Obama actions holds up better in hindsight. Regarding discussions here about Obama and the Public Option at the time I was illustrating what I think were th main competing narrotives at that time. I don't recall there being many if any people on DU asserting that it was hogwash to believe Obama could get a public option through the U.S. Senate. Maybe you were in a group of people saying that at the time. If so I must have missed it.

[JoePhilly]

10. So you list a series of snap shots ... but you don't want to discuss them.

ok.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I did, at length

in the Kos Diary I linked you too. If you really want to focus a discussion now on whether or not it ever was possible for Obama to get a public option through the Senate, start by reading that extensive full discussion. Then start a thread here with that question as the subject abd I will gladly take part in that discussion.

[JoePhilly]

12. I asked you a direct question ... and read your Kos post.

And it doesn't say anything to answer my direct question.

And other than our current back and forth, this OP, and associated thread, appears to be dead.

So why not answer me here?

[slipslidingaway]

13. Second the economic team as that started to divide DU ...

also on whether or not to investigate any high ranking officials in the Bush administration.

Thanks and great diary at DK.

:)