Why Obama didn't cave on his speech (and why it doesn't really matter).

[EOTE]

There has been a great deal of discussion here lately on whether or not President Obama caved regarding moving his economic speech to a date that doesn’t coincide with the Republican presidential debate. I happen to believe that Obama played this very smartly. Once again, Republicans are coming off as being extremely petty, and I’m sure many are now seeing them as being downright hostile toward a President who’s attempting to discuss with America probably the most pressing issue of current time. Simultaneously, Obama is coming off as magnanimous in that he’s once again the one making accommodations while the opposition is once again refusing to budge an inch.

But all of this fervor is stemming from something as silly and inconsequential as the timing of a speech. Frankly, this is the kind of thing that I don’t mind Obama “compromising” on. Democrats come out looking more mature and ready to govern, while the GOP comes out looking like petulant children. What we must not lose site of is the “compromising” that Obama does on other issues, issues which actually affect us on a day to day basis on a far larger scale. Since the beginning of his presidency, Obama has been so sold on the idea of “compromise” that he’s abandoned a great deal of what garnered him his popular support in the first place.

During the campaign, Obama promised to push for a public option for health care. This was a step down from a true single payer system that some other candidates supported, but many people believed that a public option would be a great compromise between the Democrats who support a universal healthcare system and the GOP who generally want to do nothing with healthcare other than to implement “Tort reform” which does nothing to control healthcare prices and only limits a victim’s ability to seek restitution. So Obama goes into the healthcare debate already having a position of compromise in mind. We would find out many months later that the “public option” was pretty much dead on arrival. He had taken it off the table to appease the insurance industry and any “reform” to be done was to be done not as a compromise, but pretty much a capitulation to the right. So even though he compromised before even entering the debate, the end result was pushed even further to the right.

Another thing Obama campaigned on was a reduction of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan leading to an eventual withdrawal for both wars. While troops in Iraq have decreased, it seems that they’ve simply been moved to Afghanistan. I see this as a shell game. I’m sure many progressives are incredibly pleased with our progress in Iraq (I am as well). However, I don’t see this as a net positive as we’re still heavily involved in two completely unjust wars. I did not vote for Obama believing that we’d be so heavily invested in these wars nearly three years after being sworn in, I can’t imagine many others did either. Once again, this is a perfect example of the “compromise” that Obama engages in that’s completely harmful to the country.

Perhaps the most striking example of this harmful “compromise” is Obama’s record on job creation. Obama is on track to have a fairly dismal record on job creation. While it can’t be denied that Obama inherited a terrible economy from Bush, he hasn’t done nearly enough to make things better. Nearly all prominent economists agree that Obama’s stimulus was right-headed, but didn’t provide nearly enough spending to provide job growth. This turned out to be doubly bad in that while he provided money toward a stimulus which is now seen as not being entirely successful, he also had to endure constant cries of “Socialism!” from the GOP as if he were somehow far to the left of the general public on this issue when that couldn’t be further from the truth. His labor secretary even said "The federal government does not create jobs, we help incentivize, we make I think a concerted effort to coordinate our dollars." Well, the federal government doesn’t create jobs if its leadership doesn’t want it to, but FDR proved that the federal government very well can create jobs. And at a time like this, that’s damned well what it should be doing.

THESE are the important issues that Obama shouldn’t be compromising on. It’s become quite clear to me that Obama isn’t actually compromising at all. When it’s the GOP that constantly gets the bigger end of the stick (or the stick in its entirety) with hardly any opposition, it becomes quite apparent that Obama is getting exactly what he wants. Obama has decided to trade in the popular support that got him elected for the financial support of the elites he’s constantly supporting. So far, no amount of “holding his feet to the fire” has worked. The brouhaha over the speech is nothing more than a diversion. Until Obama stops “compromising” over issues that really matter to the American people, the public is going to be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. It very well might get him reelected, but it’s not going to solve the very real problems that this country is facing.

[Magister Ludi]

1. Some just want an excuse to put the screws to Obama. Any excuse will do.

[dennis4868]

2. When did Obama...

campaign for a public option during the presidential campaign in 2008? And remember, in 2014 the exhanges kick in which is similar to a public option.

[EOTE]

7. This should provide a fair amount of info...

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/yes_obama_did_campaign_on_the.html

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/


And the exchanges are a very sorry alternative to a public option. I see no way that exchanges will lead to universal coverage. It's widely accepted that a public option would do just that.

[dennis4868]

9. There's alot of hair splitting...

with Obama's statement on the campaign regarding the public option...I can send you plenty of articles that say the opposite...that he did not campaign on the public option...I don't remember him doing campaigning on the public option...

[EOTE]

12. Hair splitting? These are his own words. What you remember is inconsequential.

From the thinkprogress link:

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in new public plan.” <2008>

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” <6/15/09>

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” <7/17/09>

– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” <7/20/09>

– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this ,” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” <9/20/09>

So he not only campaigned on it, he continued to tout it for a while after getting elected even though he knew it was completely off the table.

[dennis4868]

16. right..

he said health care exchanges and that's happening in 2014! :-)

[EOTE]

20. He said "public option" and "public plan".

What we've got is nothing of the sort.

[dennis4868]

28. nope...

check the record...he never said PUBLIC OPTION...and the exchangesd which you know nothing about (and I do because I am in the health care industry) is very similar to a public option.

[EOTE]

38. I've provided the quotes and links.

You can argue all you want, but the public record is available for all to see.

[dennis4868]

41. sorry...

I disagree :-)

[tblue]

15. Why does that not make me feel better?

"He never campaigned on a public option." YAAAAY!!! Hanh?

And how come so many people say he 'really wanted' one but the Republicans wouldn't let him?

[Time for change]

51. You claim you could send plenty of articles claiming that Obama didn't campaign on a public option

Yet you don't do anything of the sort. Where are these articles?

I wrote a DU article in 2008 comparing (among other things) Obama's promises on health care with McCain's. Here it is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5921433. In that article I quoted from Obama's own web site and provided a link (the support of the public option has subsequently been withdrawn from his website) to it. What Obama promised on his website was a national health care plan for all Americans to buy affordable health covrage that is “similar to the plan available to members of Congress.” He did nothing of the sort. Instead, he came up with a plan that requires most Americans to purchase health care insurance from the private insurance industry.

[dennis4868]

10. he basically campaigned on a...

public insurance program...this program was included in the ACA - it's the public exchanges that take effect in 2014.

Check the record, Obama never uttered the words 'public option' or 'public plan' in his big campaign speeches on health care.

[EOTE]

13. Maybe not, but the words "public option" and "public plan" are in his campaign literature.

So he sure as hell can't say that he didn't support it.

[dennis4868]

18. right...

but he never uttered the words public option in his speeches and we are going to have public exchanges in 2014 which he definitely mentioned during the campaign :-)

[EOTE]

14. Also, Politifact lists it as a "promise broken."

I hardly consider Politifact to be unnecessarily harsh toward Obama.

[dennis4868]

19. I think they were harsh in this instance...

whenever he spoke on the campaign trail he never talked about a public option but instead public exchanges.

[EOTE]

23. What does it matter?

His literature said that's what he'd promote. Voters who actually bothered to find out what his position was on the issue voted for him under that assumption. Yet when he gets into office, he veers entirely to the right. You may not feel hoodwinked regarding this, but many people who followed his campaign closely definitely do.

[dennis4868]

27. been following politics for 50 years...

there's always stuff in literature in order to similar to the national party's agenda but if the candidate does not speak about it and fight for it during the campaign it's well known it's not something he realy wants...HE NEVER MENTIONED THE PUBLIC OPTION IN ANY SPEECH! :-) It was clear to mosr reasonable people that Obama was not for a public option (and by the way, the public option is very similar to the exchanges in 2014...very little difference and covers just about the same # of people).

[EOTE]

39. The exchanges are a very poor substitute for a public option.

You can read a bit about them here:

http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/2057/what-is-the-public-option-what-is-the-exchange

The most important part of a public option would be to increase the likelihood that insurance is actually affordable to use for more people. That's where an exchange system works extremely poorly.

[dennis4868]

40. not what I heard...

more people in the exhanges the better for everyone as prices come down! Go Obama! 2012! :-)

[joeybee12]

3. He caved...no doubt about it, but for arguments sake, say he didn't...

he still screwed up because the ONLY thing the media is talking about now is the brouhaha...that's the way the media works...anything he says in that speech willbe overshadowed by this. They're all idiots at the White House or secret republicans.

[Logical]

4. Why pick the fight if he isn't going to actually fight?

[Peregrine Took]

6. +1 n/t

[pintobean]

8. They outsmarted themselves.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. It very well might get him reelected, but it’s not going to solve the very real problems ...

Too many believe that the purpose of getting elected is to get re-elected.

[tblue]

17. That's the be-all end-all, don't you know???

So many wasted opportunities......

[EOTE]

44. I thought Obama would be different in that regard.

The worst part about it is that I believe if he had stuck to the bulk of his campaign promises and not capitulated at every turn, I think he still could have stood a good chance at getting reelected. Corporate influence of our elections needs to stop.

[EstimatedProphet]

11. Why it really won't matter

Obama could walk on water, and the repubs would complain that he can't swim. We all know that. 30 years ago they would have looked like fools for the things they do. But now they have a 24/7 brainwashing machine in place that automatically convinces almost a third of the entire country that Repubs Are Always Right And Perfect In Every Way, And All Dems Are Evil Demons, and this same setup drives all the other media to an enormous extent. In other words, it really doesn't matter because whatever the outcome or whatever the action, they will at a minimum be able to make the average person disappointed in what happens and how it came about. Until the brainwashing machine is dealt with, we'll never make headway.

[ixion]

21. being weak and ineffectual will get him re-elected?

Wow. You need to lay off the Kool-Aid®.

[EOTE]

25. It very well might?

Are you convinced he doesn't have a chance? I think the current field of republicans is so incredibly out of the mainstream that he might actually win easily in 2012. The only question is whether that's going to be all that much of a good thing.

[ixion]

33. I wouldn't say "no chance"

but the fact that he has alienated the progressive base doesn't help.

I'm not saying (as some here posit) that he needs to be a 'machho dictator'. We had that with BushCo and it sucked. All I'm saying is that he could at least fight back. His 'compromises' are almost entirely giveaways to the GOP, and then he turns around and tells the base to STFU when we complain.

In a game where power is everything, caving -- if only in appearance -- is a bad move.

[Dawgs]

22. Right... those high approval numbers show that he's kicking Republican ass.

:eyes:

[EOTE]

26. What? Did you read the OP? NT

[Drale]

24. I don't think Obama had a choice on this one

He has to be invited to speak to congress, and Boner was not going to give in. So Obama could have given to speech to just the Senate but I think he wants to give it in front of the entire congress.

[texshelters]

30. Screw congress

Obama needs to address the American people.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[wpelb]

36. He could have given it from the Oval Office

Pres. Obama probably could have given the speech from the Oval Office or somewhere else in the White House and made himself look Presidential and in-charge, while subtly (or not-so-subtly) painting Congress as petty, bickering, squabbling children more interested in political gain than the country's future.

[texshelters]

29. Let me get this straight

caving means he didn't cave?

I call BS. I wish once Obama would say, NO! to the Republicans, just once. Is that a lot to ask?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[EOTE]

34. Oh, he's caved plenty.

It's just that this particular cave is of negligible consequence compared to all the other times.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. A few things...

1. On the stimulus: the president wanted a bigger one, but sadly, it was the Blue Dogs and the Republicans who wanted MORE tax cuts in the program rather than stimulus. Yes, all of us agree that it should have been bigger, but with Republicans all voting in lockstep against, and the Blue Dogs going along with them, it was not possible to get a larger package.

2. On the Iraq/Afghan invasions: you admit that there have been troop downsizing in Iraq, but you don't have your facts straight about Afghanistan. First, the president DID run on the promise that he was going to downsize in Iraq and redirect resources to Afghanistan. He clearly campaigned on that issue. Either you weren't paying attention or you didn't believe him. Second, you assert that the war in Aghanistan is unjust. How is it unjust? That's where resources should have been directed in the first place, remember?

3. On job creation: there are several issues here. First, there are at a half dozen jobs bills sitting in the House right now that were introduced by the Democrats, and another 3 or 4 counterparts in the Senate. Any idea as to why those bills haven't moved forward? You guessed it! Civics 101 teaches us that the party in control in the U.S. House (led by the Speaker) controls the legislative agenda through committees and what gets put on the floor. In the Senate, those bills are being held up by "holds" that Republicans have placed on them in committee. Second, the president cannot control the legislative docket; indeed, he doesn't have the "powers of the purse". Those powers to control the budget belong to Congress. Yes, the president can direct his federal agencies to create works programs and the like, but he is limited as far as allocating money for these projects, as again, this is a power specifically given to the Congress, Article I, Sections 7 and 8. And finally, you assert that the president's job creation record has been abysmal. Really? Abysmal? First, this economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama entered officce. He has had several months of consistence job growth and is on course to create more through private and public investment. Do you know that Republican governors are deliberately laying off public workers so that the unemployment numbers go up? Why are they doing this? So that people like you will blame Obama FIRST!!!!

I unrecommended your thread, as it is full of inconsistencies and false arguments, and also because I'm tired of Democrats blaming Democrats FIRST rather than Republicans!!!!!!

[EOTE]

37. Replies.

1) What the president claims to have wanted is pretty much meaningless. What he fought for is far more important. He rolled over on the issue. And he gained absolutely nothing from his "compromise". All he got in return was scornful decries of "socialism!" when we should have only been so lucky.

2) With regard to Afghanistan, the promise was to initially send up to 10,000 or so additional troops with the goal of eventually drawing down our presence there. The actual number of troops was 5 times this amount. And even if you claim that this is what Obama had actually promised in his campaign, are you actually going to support this miserable policy simply because it's consistent? And you bet your ass this is an unjust war. Why the hell are we there? Afghanistan offered up Bin Laden after 9/11 with the only qualification being that he'd be tried in the ICC. Bush refused that perfectly reasonable request and invaded anyway. He was going to get his blood no matter what. It's a stupid, unjust war and has done absolutely zero good.

3) As to job creation, he had quite a while with Democrats in control of all three branches, what he did then was woefully insufficient. And while a number of republicans got into office in 2010 with the promise of making jobs a priority, Obama has done extremely little to hold their feet to the fire and he has done extremely little himself to make this a priority. And it's great that Democrats are introducing these jobs bills. However, Obama has hardly proven himself to be a democrat.

You can see inconsistencies where you may. The biggest consistency I've seen from this administration is that it cares far more about corporate interests than actual people.

[scheming daemons]

32. Obama did not campaign on drawing down forces in Afghanistan, in fact it was the opposite

He campaigned on increasing our focus there.

Hard to take the rest of what you said seriously when you blatantly misrepresented that.

[EOTE]

35. Yeah, about that...

http://www.openleft.com/diary/16306/um-about-obamas-afghanistan-campaign-promise

Obama said nothing of the sort that would lead anyone to believe that he'd do what he had in Afghanistan. This is more than a continuation of Bush's policies, it's an insane escalation. And this is not a just war. You're going to defend this?

[scheming daemons]

45. I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying it is what he campaigned on

The fact that you heard the exact opposite of what he said is your problem.

He said he was going to ramp up in Afghanistan and draw down in iraq.

That's exactly what he did.


You can disagree with it, but calling it a broken promise is a lie.

[EOTE]

46. The goal in Afghanistan was an eventual end.

And the ramp up was FAR more than he promised. More by a factor of 5x. You may not think this is a problem. People who give a damn about what's happening in the area do. It's an unjust war. We simply should not be there.

[scheming daemons]

47. Again... you're arguing whether it is correct policy... I have no argument with you there.

Your OP stated that "Obama campaigned on drawing down in Afghanistan". That is a lie.

You can make your point without making stuff up.

[EOTE]

48. You don't really seem to be interested in a debate.

Rather than shutting it down over a simple triviality. You take one point out of several and decide to throw out the entire argument. Any way you look at it, Obama broke his campaign promise on Afghanistan. He promised a minor troop increase (nothing akin to the around 40% increase he delivered) with the goal being an eventual withdrawal. He also never said anything about the massive number of additional contractors over there continuing to wreak havoc. If Obama were to have been honest about his intentions in Afghanistan, if he were to say that nearly 3 years into his presidency that we'd have a 40% increase of troop levels with absolutely no end in sight (just what is our goal there, anyway?) there's no way in hell he would have received support from many democrats. There's a difference between a lie and a misstatement. You seem to have no desire to acknowledge that difference. You may say you're not, but you are without a doubt defending the indefensible.

[scheming daemons]

49. I don't disagree with you about the Afghanistan policy, so there's nothing to debate there

Lying to get your point across diminished your entire post.

[EOTE]

50. Nice to see you're interested in elevating the debate.

The reason you can't get beyond this is to provide an excuse to defend the indefensible. Reasonable people can debate. Throwing out insults is usually the result of being bereft of ideas.

[county worker]

42. To the majority of people looking at this, it looks like Obama caved.

Whether he did or not is not the point. If you string together all of Obama's "fights" with the right it looks like he is weak.

Perception is everything.

[EOTE]

43. I agree.

It's just that this particular "cave" is fairly insignificant compared to all the other times when he's capitulated to the right. At least now I think he comes off looking like the moderate in the situation. In the other instances, we're seeing a severe rightward shift in policy that's going to hurt many Americans.