Pres. Obama’s Speech: Reaction Roundup

Posted by KATHY KATTENBURG in Breaking News, Health, Politics, Society.
Sep 10th, 2009 | 10 responses

At FiveThirtyEight.com, separate comments by Nate Silver and Tom Schaller — Nate first:

On the one hand, Obama needed to appeal to liberals — both the 60 or so members of the House who have threatened to vote against a watered-down bill, and the much broader, activist community who has grown wary of what they perceive as a Clintonian president who is too willing to compromise. On the other hand, he needed to appeal to independent voters and their brethren, among whom Obama’s approval ratings and sentiment toward his health care package have fallen significantly. …

I think Obama accomplished both of those things — with some margin to spare. On the one hand, there was no absence of red meat for the liberals. Lies were called out as lies. The Republicans, who seemed to lack an understanding of the theatrics in the room, were at several points made to look petty and stupid. And Obama made the moral case for health care reform, something many liberals — including yours truly — have been urging him to do for a long time.

And Tom:

… The politics of health care have always been about convincing the insured—who by definition are both more powerful and less inclined toward change—and specifically the elderly who are insured, that something needs to be done. This speech was designed to convince the reluctant insured to get behind the White House plan.

I have no doubt the speech can’t hurt this effort. But I wonder just how many of the insured, regardless of age, are persuadable at all—whatever the merits of the plan or the audacity of the speech. …

And frankly, the notion that Americans of the current and previous governing generations care about the government’s fiscal solvency is belied by the fact that most cannot remember the government balancing the budget in their adult lifetimes. They have shown a willingness to let the country spend inefficiently and beyond its means for years, on policies (as Obama pointed out) both domestic and foreign.

The official transcript of the speech refers to Joe Wilson anonymously, as an “audience member.” Which seems fine to me. No need to give Wilson a place in history. In any event, Alex Koppelman notes, Wilson’s “crazed outburst” only made the Republicans look worse than they already do (hard to credit, I know):

By the time the transcript was blasted out electronically to the press, of course, Wilson had already apologized, complete with a phone call to Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff. And Wilson had already been called out on TV and the Internet for his bizarre behavior. …

All that meant that by late evening, the White House could well afford to be magnanimous. The outburst could only have helped convey the impression Obama was aiming for in his speech: that he was the reasonable one, working hard to find a solution to a problem that has bedeviled America for decades, and his opponents were simply not interested in joining the cause. The president seized the initiative in the debate over healthcare back from the Republicans, and may have started to move past the summer’s bickering and into a new fall phase where something productive actually gets done. “I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than to improve it,” Obama promised. “If you misrepresent what’s in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.”

Jane Hamsher thinks Obama hit all his marks with the speech itself, but is not so happy about his equivocating language when it came to the public option:

The President did a great job last night on selling the country on the need for health care reform.  He made the moral case, and every metric indicates that people were overwhelmingly moved to support his plan.

That’s the good news for the White House. The not so good news:  the White House has been trying to get out from under the burden of supporting the public option for weeks.  The trouble is, every time they try to do it, the President’s numbers take a huge hit.  And so last night he came out and indicated that a public plan would be a part of his reform package.

[...]

The website is not so quick to commemorate the qualifiers regarding this public plan from last night’s speech:

• “The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.”
• “For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies.” (triggers)
• “Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring.”  (co-ops)

The administration’s inability to close the gap between expectations and reality is a boon for progressives members of Congress. Earlier this week, the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus — Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey — wrote a letter urging the President to mention it in his speech.  I spoke with Rep. Grijalva yesterday, and he reiterated the need for the President to mention it in his speech.  As long as the President keeps expressing his support for a public option, they — and we — can quite rightly say that we’re only insisting on something Obama himself endorses, something he campaigned on.

Of course, the actions of the White House betray quite a different intent.  The deals they have negotiated with health care industry stakeholders do not include a public plan, they don’t believe they can back out of them without triggering a rush of lobbyist money to GOP coffers.  At some point there will be a day of reckoning when the public understands that the public option is gone.  The White House wants to stop their opponents — and let’s face it, progressives who are insisting on the inclusion of a public plan are at this point their opponents — from being able to exploit that gap.  Because every day that goes by the base gets more and more wedded to the promise of a public plan, encouraged by the positive rhetoric of the President himself.  And it becomes that much harder for the White House to extract itself from the double bind they have created without paying a huge political price.

So… even the not so good news is not so bad.

Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Nancy Pelosi is one smart cookie.

10 Responses to “Pres. Obama’s Speech: Reaction Roundup”

1. JSpencer says:

   September 10, 2009 at 6:24 pm

   Thanks Kathy, those are some encouraging reports. The hill isn't any less steep, but there is a bit more traction now. Also the democrats have shown themselves to be in a league above their opposition when it comes to matters of class; of course I mean that in the sense of character. Of course the widening character gap is also being contributed to in spades by the republicans, albeit in a adisadvantageous sense… for them.
2. Leonidas says:

   September 10, 2009 at 8:47 pm

   From The Hill, a neutral source, unlike Kathy's liberal blog roundup.

   http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5805…

   President Barack Obama’s address to Congress on healthcare reform was short on specifics and long on ideas he and his advisers had already floated this year.

   The historic speech left some liberals wanting more details and conservatives emboldened to torpedo the president’s top domestic priority. …

   Still, while the speech once again illustrated the president’s extraordinary oratory skills, it was not a game changer and appears to leave the president with the same quandary: Healthcare has become the pinnacle legislative issue of his first term, but has divided his party in Congress and run into almost universal GOP opposition. Polls suggest Americans are not convinced reform will help their lives and it is unclear whether the legislation Obama seeks will reach his desk.

   Obama was expected to take the wheel on healthcare reform after the Democratic-led Congress drove it into a ditch over the summer, but it did not appear he did so.
3. JeffersonDavis says:

   September 10, 2009 at 10:45 pm

   “The President did a great job last night on selling the country on the need for health care reform”

   I don't believe that the President's goal was selling the country on the NEED for reform.
   For the most part, most of the nation, both conservative and liberal, recognize that the system is broken, and it direly needs reform.

   The President did not do a good job on selling HIS solution for healthcare reform.
   There are still FAR too many variables and unknowns remaining.

   The GOP had a golden opportunity to push through sweeping reform when they still controlled Congress – but they blew it. Only now, when the democrats are on the verge of passing some sort of disastrous public option or single payer system, are the ideas flowing from the right side of the aisle.

   I pray that it isn't too little, too late for innovative ideas to help real Americans with the healthcare problem. The left, including the President and the House, want single payer (or public option with the eventual end to universal healthcare.
4. Dr J says:

   September 10, 2009 at 10:47 pm

   A good summary, Leonidas. The president gives a terrific speech.

   He seems like he's still campaigning, though. His superb ability to deliver carefully crafted messages that let both sides hear what they want was a major part of his success. He was still at it last night, but at this stage we need more specifics. We need a sensible, specific plan that genuinely disappoints everyone in at least one area.
5. imavettoo says:

   September 11, 2009 at 12:15 am

   “Good summery Leonidas”? Why would you post that when all “L” did was copy an article from The Hill? Birds of a feather I guess
6. imavettoo says:

   September 11, 2009 at 12:17 am

   My god , why am I even here? Bunch of (non-moderate) morons.
7. Dr J says:

   September 11, 2009 at 12:27 am

   Because I thought it was a good summary, imavet. I understand it was a quote. It also delivered on Kathy's promise of a “round-up” by rounding out the leftist quotes she posted.
8. Leonidas says:

   September 11, 2009 at 8:12 am

   My god , why am I even here? Bunch of (non-moderate) morons.

   Well you can always make it one less.
9. Leonidas says:

   September 11, 2009 at 8:46 am

   Another post for the roundup, from David Brooks, who makes some good points:

   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opinion/11bro…

   First, Obama rested the credibility of his presidency on what you might call the Dime Standard. He was flexible about many things, but not this: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period.”

   This sound bite kills the House health care bill. That bill would add $220 billion (that’s 2.2 trillion dimes) to the deficit over the first 10 years and another $1 trillion (10 trillion dimes) to the deficit over the next 10 years.

   There is no way to get from the House bill to deficit neutrality. The president’s speech guarantees that the more moderate Senate Finance Committee bill will be the basis for the negotiations to come.

   The Dime Standard also sets off a political cascade. Since the Congressional Budget Office is the universally accepted arbiter in such matters, the Democrats have to produce a bill that the C.B.O. says is deficit-neutral, now and forever. That means there will be a seller’s market for any member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, who has a credible amendment to cut costs. It also means the Democrats will have to scale back coverage and subsidy levels to reach the fiscal targets.

   Second, the president accepted the principle of capping the tax exemption on employer-provided health benefits. The specific proposal he embraced is a backdoor and indirect version of the cap. But what’s important here is the movement and the concession on principle. Soon moderates and Republicans will produce amendments to impose a cap directly. These amendments will credibly raise revenue and reduce costs. The administration will now have no principled argument to reject them.

   Third, the president accepted the principle of tort reform to reduce the costs of defensive medicine. Once again, the specific proposal Obama mentioned is trivial. The important thing was the concession on principle. There are already amendments being drawn up to create separate malpractice courts and to otherwise reform the insane malpractice system. The president is going to have a hard time rejecting these amendments just because they might reduce campaign donations from tort lawyers to the Democratic National Committee.

   Fourth, the president introduced the public option to its own exclusive Death Panel. As Max Baucus has said, the public option cannot pass the Senate. On Wednesday, the president praised it, then effectively buried it. White House officials no longer mask their exasperation with the liberal obsession on this issue.

   Fifth, the president also buried the soak-the-rich approach. The House Ways and Means Committee came up with a plan to raise taxes on the rich to pay for health reform. That’s dead, too. Health reform will be paid for by changes within the health care system. The president underlined his resolve to cut $500 billion from Medicare and Medicaid. This is a courageous move that moderates appreciate.

   Finally, people in the administration and moderates in Congress would like to beef up the “game changers.” These are the wonky but important ideas like bundling hospital payments and increasing price transparency that might lead to a more efficient system down the road.

   In short, the president can read the polls just like anybody else. He has apparently recognized the need to pull back to get something passed. He is, characteristically, trying to rise above old divisions in search of a pragmatic sweet spot. He has opened up many opportunities for intelligent Republicans and moderate Democrats to constructively offer amendments to improve the bill and bring it closer to fiscal sanity.

   Which is not to say that this is effective health reform. The only risible parts of the speech came when Obama said that parts of the system work (they don’t; they’re unsustainable) and when he said he would be the last president to take on health care (we still await a president willing to take on fundamental perversities in the system).

   For whatever reason, President Obama has decided not to be that president. He has decided to expand the current system, not fix it. His speech on Wednesday, and the coming legislative changes, make it much more likely he will achieve his goal.
10. DLS says:

    September 11, 2009 at 10:44 am

    I isolated the few, serious, points of value and identified the many defects in the speech already.

    I also waited for others to remark, but nobody seems to recall, so I'll proceed now: What if the lefty little bloggers were around in the 1980s when something else happened that OUTRAGED! the children then?

    It's something Obama had the class not to do during his address, which is different from an ordinary appearance or press conference, which would be the more applicable kind of event.

    Obama didn't bark at Wilson to “Shut up!”