Mission for the Mourner-in-Chief
It will be a short trip for Barack Obama from his vacation site in Martha’s Vineyard to Ted Kennedy’s funeral in Boston tomorrow, but the Senator’s interment will be the start of a longer, tougher journey for the President.
He will have to follow his mourning by channeling the departed’s gift for inside politics, summoning up Kennedy’s legendary blend of toughness and people skills to lure Senators out of their “ideological caves” and come together to rise above lobbyist pressures and political posturing to pass meaningful health care reform
Sen. Robert Byrd suggests, in expressing grief for Kennedy, that “in his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American.”
In the coming weeks, the President will have to put more than Ted Kennedy’s name on health care reform.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
3 Responses to “Mission for the Mourner-in-Chief”
That would be the number one mission for Obama that Kennedy wanted. Public option, no compromise.
It was predicted that such an obvious and pathetic appeal to emotion would be used to exploit the easily exploitable.
And no, Chris Matthews is wrong: Obama is not the last of the “four” Kennedy brothers. [snicker]
“Most Democrats would see this as a serious setback, and are imploring Mr Obama not to yield. They attach great importance to the idea because they hope it might be the thin end of a wedge. The public option, in their view, might have a modest effect to begin with – but over time, correctly managed, it would significantly shrink the detested private insurance business. That prospect is exactly why the other side is against it.”
And so, I'll let you answer this question, Sil. (The burden of proof of acceptance is obviously on your side and so far you have failed.) And no wanting for the next Democratic or lib activist sound bites.
“Characteristically, Mr Obama has been trying to have it both ways. His “keep them honest” soundbites express Democratic party orthodoxy: the private health insurers are bandits. Yet he has also said that the public option should operate under strict regulation and without public subsidy, all but neutering its ability to play the role he appears to advocate. Either the public option is the start of an assault on private health insurance – in which case most Americans would not want it – or else it isn’t, in which case why advocate it in the first place?”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c46ee230-8cf2-11de-a5…