As the Republicans are playing Checkers, President Obama has a Chess Strategy re: Healthcare Reform

[Tx4obama]

Obama's Health-Care Realism
His Flexible Tactics Match Reform to Political Reality

<snip>

The Obama strategy since his election has been based on a gimlet-eyed and pragmatic assessment of the prospects and limits afforded by public opinion and the political process. A naive president would have assumed that, after a landslide victory, huge coattails, swollen partisan majorities and a high approval rating, he could have it all -- and pushed hard and early for a far-reaching, soup-to-nuts upheaval of the health-care system. Obama and his strategists understood that would not work.

<snip>
<snip>
<snip>

How to prevail under these difficult circumstances? The only realistic way was to avoid a bill of particulars, to stay flexible, and to rely on congressional party and committee leaders in both houses to find the sweet spots to get bills through individual House and Senate obstacle courses. Under these circumstances, the best intervention from the White House is to help break impasses when they arise and, toward the end, the presidential bully pulpit and the president's political capital can help to seal the deal.

No health reform bill can be enacted unless the House and Senate each pass a version, and that has been the single-minded goal of the White House. If the Senate has to resort to reconciliation, it can only work if more than 50 Democrats are convinced that it is the last resort -- that every effort was made to compromise to include significant Republican support. Thus, the White House signal on the public option. Once both houses pass versions, no matter how disparate, a conference committee can find a way to meld the bills -- no doubt with heavy White House input -- into one plan that goes back to each house for up or down votes. There, the pressure on lawmakers to support health reform will be much greater, as will the ability to break filibusters by urging all Democrats, even if they can't support a bill, to vote for cloture as a procedural issue.

The odds remain reasonable that a solid, if not dramatic, health reform bill can make it through this process and become law. Any bill, under these conditions, will be a major accomplishment. The odds have been improved, not damaged, by the president's approach.

Full article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102913.html

[niceypoo]

1. The Republicans are playing tiddly winks

They are too stupid to play checkers, yet they are somehow still allowed to steer the agenda.

[byebyegop]

2. more like a combination of poker and chess where boths sides know each others hands. n/t

Of course the Republikkkans cannot win playing it straight so they have to resort to lying and cheating.

[ginnyinWI]

3. September's here and it's time to roll out the pros.

Obama let the birther-teabag-deather-crazies have August. Fine, now they're old news. Time to get serious and get this bill through Congress. Rahm knows how the House works, and Biden is the Senate pro. They will have this bill at Check-mate before the Repubs can do any real damage.

[Fozzledick]

4. Maybe he's playing go rather than chess

Not so much setting up a single overwhelming surprise attack, but rather slowly staking out territory and taking strategically critical positions that will eventually join to dominate the field as a whole.

[Tx4obama]

16. That sounds good. I've never played 'go' I'll have to look it up :) n/t

[notesdev]

5. Obama is playing tic-tac-toe... and losing

What kind of nonsense is this article? How deep in to self-delusion do you have to be to interpret this comedy of errors as sophistication of strategy?

Everything we have seen so far has indicated that this President is out of his depth.

Let's review the record:

- Obama comes into office and appoints defense lobbyists to his defense program, issuing a waiver (violation) of standards that he promised to keep.

- Obama appoints as his economic team during a historic crisis many of the very same criminals and thieves (Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, etc.) for whom the bulk of the blame for the crisis can rightfully be placed.

- Obama appoints as his lead on health care (you might notice a pattern forming here) a health care industry lobbyist.

- With the economic crunch biting, allows his wife to go out and publicly spend over $500 on a pair of tennis shoes that probably won't be worn more than five times before being given away or discarded. Not a policy issue, but it shows they are still on the roaring 00's spend-spend-spend mentality while the rest of the country shifts to an economic survival mentality.

- Puts out a stimulus program based on numbers that were so off target as to invite criticism of any other projections made by his administration.

- Obama comes out in support of an industry-compromised abomination of a thousand page House bill that doesn't even settle basic questions like what kind of care is to be covered. (What the bill does do is lock in higher profits for insurance companies and pharmas.)

- Gets involved in something he has no business being involved in, making enemies and publicly embarrassing himself for no good reason (the Gates affair).

- Confirms the complete disconnect between his own state of mind and that of the average American, as, with the nation deep in debt, chooses to doggedly pursue a spending agenda that makes the previous drunken-sailor GOP look like penny-pinchers, and playing chicken with bond market dislocation.

- Repeatedly increasing funding and scope for the war in Afghanistan, even though he ran and was elected as an anti-war candidate, and even though no actual, credible mission can be articulated.


...

and on and on and on. Face it, at best Obama is a completely empty suit being used as a puppet by the powerful interests who owned D.C. before he arrived and will own it after he is gone. At worst he is one of them.

We need a real solution before the hammer hits in 2010. Mark my words, the Democrats are going to get utterly destroyed in 2010 and again in 2012 unless men and women of integrity who can handle basic accounting stand up and take over immediately.

All this irrational Obama-boosterism is going to get us killed at the polls. Stop being starry-eyed and start being cynical; you will be right so much more often, and where you are wrong you will be pleasantly surprised. It is what you need to do to keep your reps' feet to the fire. If you do not, be assured it is guaranteed that the only ones holding their feet to the fire will be big corps with lots of $$ to spend on campaigns.

[Tx4obama]

6. I will not be cynical. I stopped being cynical when I started supporting Obama. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

7. You need a sign, and need to go stand in the street with it!

"Face it, at best Obama is a completely empty suit being used as a puppet by the powerful interests who owned D.C. before he arrived and will own it after he is gone. At worst he is one of them."

Your quote is a bunch of bullshit that will be proven wrong. But I'm bookmarking your post,
just in case I have to wipe your face with it sooner than you calculate.

[notesdev]

8. It's a deal

I'll even be more specific: Democrats are going to walk away with 180 seats in the House, maximum, after the next election. That damage has already been done, and I don't see any way around it. It could be as few as 140 if what we have seen so far continues.

and if I may, I'll bookmark your response as well, and we can review in November of next year which of us turned out to be correct.

[FrenchieCat]

9. You sound fearful.

Hope it helps you in your life.

Those who buy into Corporate propaganda are bound to die by it.

[notesdev]

14. I'm more concerned

about the coming wipeout in the midterms than I am about losing an argument on a message board. You would do well do adopt a similar concern.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Well if you keep repeating it, its bound to come true.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. You lost me at "allows his wife"

Precisely what decade do you think this is?

[notesdev]

11. It's a decade when

A person can get a staff of 20+ at a cost of millions per year, with no productive responsibility (or lawful authority) whatsoever, simply because she is the President's wife.

We've come a long way, baby...


edit: sorry, did I mention that it was a taxpayer-funded trip? That was where the "allows his wife" comes in. She can do whatever the hell she likes on her own dime, but she is not the President and cannot do these things on her own.

[Tx4obama]

18. Laura Bush's Staff (partial list)

Staff of LAURA Bush

McBride, Anita B. Assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady $168,000.00

Harder, Cherie S. Special assistant to the president for domestic policy and director of project of the first lady $108,000.00

Niemiec, Sally M. Press secretary to the First Lady $90,000.00

Miller, Sonja M. Deputy chief of staff to the first lady $84,700.00

Ballard, Deanna M. Director of scheduling for the First Lady $75,000.00

Underwood, Carrie P. Deputy director of policy and projects for the First Lady $65,000.00

Wallace, Charity N. Director of advance for the First Lady $65,000.00

Marshall, Misty C. Director of correspondence for the first lady $59,700.00

Etter, Marisa L. Deputy director of scheduling for the First Lady $50,000.00

King, Kristin N. Deputy director of advance for the first lady $50,000.00

Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special assistant and personal aide to the first lady $47,500.00

Rawson, Kimberly D. Executive assistant to the chief of staff to the First Lady $46,200.00

Donoghue , Tarah C. Deputy press secretary to the First Lady $43,000.00

Vogel, Campbell B. Deputy director of correspondence for the First Lady $42,500.00

Block, Jonathan F. Assistant press secretary to the First Lady $39,000.00

[Tx4obama]

19. Total WH Staff - Bush/Obama

Not much of a difference between the White House staffs of Bush and Obama

Total White House staff in 2008 - 443

Total White House staff in 2009 - 487

[notesdev]

29. 9% growth

More than the economy grew... more than the average paycheck grew... where's the money come from?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. What trip are you talking about?

She wore the shoes while volunteering in the DC area and nobody knows where she got them from, although NY Daily news speculates it's from Chicago. Anyway, DC is not really far from home. How far should the First Lady be "allowed" to travel?

[notesdev]

28. She got them in Paris

on a taxpayer funded trip. It was all over the news at the time, and all I could think about was how clueless the whole thing was, in the midst of 600k+/week job losses.

The First Lady should have absolutely no taxpayer funded anything. It's not a Constitutional office. Attaching something special to being the spouse of the current ruler is something done in an aristocracy.

Back in the 50s, Eisenhower's wife paid for her own secretary. What exactly has changed that requires a 20-person personal wait staff?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. That's not correct.

She was in Paris for the D-day commemorative celebration in early June. The shoe incident was at the end of April.
The shoes were designed in Paris, but that does not mean she got them in Paris.

[notesdev]

31. I stand corrected

Mixed it up with the other displays of extravagance.

You are correct, these were designed in Paris but she didn't necessarily have to have purchased them there.

On the other hand, reviewing the facts doesn't look any better for her... she wore these tennis shoes at a photo op at a food bank.

The essential point stands - this is Marie Antoinette behavior when the country is suffering. Normal Americans would never ever consider spending $540 on tennis shoes, and most of the few who would, would be more sensible than to flaunt their excess of wealth in front of the hungry.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. Marie Antoinette behavior?

She was working at a food bank. That is hardly "let them eat cake".

I think the shoes were a bad PR move, but it's not that big of a deal. She most likely just didn't think about it.

[flamingdem]

13. Agree. When he mentioned the sneakers I knew I smelled tea(bag)s. nt

[Tx4obama]

17. Mrs. Obama is an attorney ...

Michelle was pulling in a six figure salary before becoming Our First Lady.
She doesn't have to ask permission to buy shoes.
Wow, you must be living in the dark ages.

[t0dd]

22. You're absolutely right

I appreciate your insight, and these are very valid points people need to recognize. This is reality. His approval ratings are sinking, and he hasn't been the agent of change many expected him to be. He has no secret strategy on health care. If by some miracle we do adopt substantial reform, it'll be merely coincidental and owed in large part to grassroots efforts. His inability to take a stand on health care and his insistence on bargaining with a party that only wants to see him defeated were his most surprising mistakes. It's depressing and embarrassing, but this is just how things are now. There's no point in looking back. It's now a question of where do we go from here.

There is no point in wagering how many Democratic seats we will lose in Congress next November or making other grim predictions. This leads us nowhere. What we need to know is, what can be done now? Is it too late to turn it all around?

If only he could sit down with our majority in the Senate, and say to all of them: whatever views you have on the final bill, you have to vote for cloture. We have to put our differences aside, and do what is best for the party. Maybe these discussions are happening. Maybe we are all in for a shock. I hope so, anyway..

[Marr]

23. Couldn't agree more.

Well said-- it's amazing, the contortions some people will go through to see what they want to see.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. I don't agree with the OP, but parts of your list are absolutely ridiculous.

He campaigned as the anti-IRAQ war candidate. He specifically said that he would focus on the war in Afghanistan several times. I didn't and don't agree with that position, but he did NOT, as you claim, run as an anti-war candidate. "Chooses to pursue a spending agenda"? Of course he is. The U.S government does not function in the same way your household does. Spending gets the economy moving again. See: The New Deal, WWII. As far as the stimulus, if you are talking about C4C the original amount written in the bill was 4 billion. Republicans watered it down to 1 billion. And he "allows" his wife to buy shoes? She was a successful attorney. She has her own money.

I mean, you're all over the place here. The top half of your list sounds rational and then it devolves into RW talking points.

[TomCADem]

12. JFK/LBJ Needed Five Years To Pass Medicare - Obama Is Making Great Progress

Medicare was the cornerstone of JFK's 1960 campaign AND it represented a dramatic reduction in scope and compromise from Truman's efforts at universal care. Yet, 40 years later, people wonder at LBJ's speed and political genius. If DU was around back then, LBJ would be crucified for turning his back and compromising from Truman's efforts and settling for a political no-brainer of health care for the elderly, and taking five years to implement it along with JFK.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Oh yes, now DU takes WAPO's opinion as valid

because they forward the myth of the smarter-than-you Obama.

WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK!!!! This is not an old Star Trek show where the crew's life depends on the inscrutable intelligence of Spock to save our lives. We are not pawns in Mr. Obama's game. We ought to be active participants and we are being shut out in reality in order to promote the myth.

Obama is not smarter than me. He is not smarter than 50 years of American wisdom and fact that single payer health care is the most efficient way to provide health care to our citizens. He is not smarter by refusing to lead the 70% of the citizens of this nation who believe in a government administered health insurance option.

[bridgit]

20. Sadly, the net effect is that no one is playing by *any* rules be they checkers, chess or whatever

Welcome to the wild west all over again :kick:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/04/07/old_rodeo_photo_wideweb__470x356,0.jpg

[optimal-tomato]

24. This is the most depressing thing I've read today.

Any bill, under these conditions, will be a major accomplishment.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like Obama's party controls either house of Congress. And since he only barely squeaked past McCain in the disputed election last Fall, it's not suprise that his health care plan is massively unpopular in the polls...

Oh wait, no. Obama is a popular president whose party controls Congress by huge margins. His plan, once explained, enjoys roughly 65 percent approval in the public. And he still can't get this through. And these are considered adverse conditions, according to the Post?

Nevermind, I forgot. He's got the biggest handicap of all. He's a Democrat. Unlike Republicans, who can get their way even with 22% job approval and opposition in the Congress, Democrats have to fight three times as hard to get anything done. We can't beat big businesses, because they've bought the Senate, (hell, one industry alone has bought the Senate in terms of health care). The media is incompetent or completely hostile. Older Americans, who have the most time on their hands for this sort of thing, have been largely fooled that the Republican party has their interests at heart. They protest raising of taxes (even when necessary), they protest government lowering costs (even when wise), and they protest government involvement (even when effective).

I often say that Democrats should always control the government, because they are so utterly impotent, they are essentially harmless.

[1]

27. that obama is a chess playing motherfucker...

the chess game he is playing eludes me, but i am sure he is playing chess. or yahtzee. or parcheesi.

or something...