Is Obama a fool?

[Feanor]

During the US Presidential campaign it struck me that BO's emphasis on bipartisanship was a noble ideal, but perhaps impractical. It seems that is so.

Rush Limbaugh got a lot of "tsk, tsk" when he said that wished Obama would fail, but events have proved that this is the Republican strategy. Even I, an outsider, am not too surprised given that world-wide, opposition parties would rather bugger the electorate than concede anything to the governing party. Obama was a fool not talking about bipartisanship but for actually believing might work. Why did he thing that?

Somebody can tell me, but I think it has to do with the "two-party" character of US politics. Two parties is really too few for any country: all opinions cannot simply be classified as black or white, (or Blue or Red). Consequently there is excessive diversity in both parties which in turn ensures that the President cannot rely on all the members of his own party to support him in Congress. In fact this is the biggest problem with a "two-part" system. Ridiculous rules such as 60% vote required in the Senate only make a bad situation worse.

In basically every other democracy there are at least three, and often many more, parties struggling for power. If "bi-" is tough, "multi-" partisanship is absurd. Granted, presidents and prime ministers talk about multi-party cooperation but few of them believe in it and fewer still count on it. But then virtually every where else in the world 50%+1 vote means bills pass. E.g. in Canada filibusters are attempted but it they go on too long the government calls for a vote of "closure" which if it passes (with 50%+1), debate is ended and the bill goes to a vote. There is no bullsh!t about 60%. There is no need for machinations such as "Reconciliation".

[blackraven]

More parties are not the answer. The answer is to have big business stop running the show. Both parties ignore what the public wants. All that both parties care about is where their next campaign contribution is coming from. Both are in bed with big business. Both parties can't stop spending the tax payers money. They are mortgaging our future away, borrowing from social security and it will never be paid back. They will continually raise taxes and to pay for watered down programs that never work!

Our system is broken. There should be a one time 6 year term limit for the President, Senate and Congress!

[3LB]

More parties are not the answer. The answer is to have big business stop running the show. Both parties ignore what the public wants. All that both parties care about is where their next campaign contribution is coming from. Both are in bed with big business. Both parties can't stop spending the tax payers money. They are mortgaging our future away, borrowing from social security and it will never be paid back. They will continually raise taxes and to pay for watered down programs that never work!

Our system is broken. There should be a one time 6 year term limit for the President, Senate and Congress!

It isn't just the system that's broken, its the amount of people who actually vote, and the amount of people who know who and what they're voting about. People might listen to campaign speeches but never look at voting records. People vote by name recognition. People cross vote; they'll vote republican locally and in state government, but they might vote Democrat for Senate, Congree or Presidential...if they vote at all. Remember when Clinton was elected Pres and then what, a year later the Republicans took over the majority of Congress, after years of it being a Democratic stronghold.

The news is no help. During campaigns the only information we get is salacious stories, both sides digging up dirt on the other and squabbling. Rarely is policy ever disgussed on local news or national news for that matter. The ones who are in office spend all their time stonewalling the other party, focusing on ways to make the other party look bad. Spin spin spin.

[blackraven]

It doesnt matter which party is in office. Big business owns both parties. I have no faith what so ever that either party can make changes to benefit our society as a whole without conceding to lobbyist's and special interest groups.

[Feanor]

More parties are not the answer. The answer is to have big business stop running the show. Both parties ignore what the public wants. All that both parties care about is where their next campaign contribution is coming from. Both are in bed with big business. Both parties can't stop spending the tax payers money. They are mortgaging our future away, borrowing from social security and it will never be paid back. They will continually raise taxes and to pay for watered down programs that never work!

Our system is broken. There should be a one time 6 year term limit for the President, Senate and Congress!

Hard to argue with that statement, BR. It applies in many countries including Canada. But I suspect it's a rather worse in the US than many countries. Unfortunately things are only going to get worse State-side thanks to the Supreme Court's decission against restricting corporate campaign contributions. That's insanity, but it's what happens when the right wing exploits an opportunity to stack the Court.

Funny: my wife, who's no political pundit, recently made the observation that the US has elections too often. I agree that electing all of Congress and the President at the same time would be a good ideal; maybe 4 years instead of 6, but either way.

[Feanor]

It doesnt matter which party is in office. Big business owns both parties. I have no faith what so ever that either party can make changes to benefit our society as a whole without conceding to lobbyist's and special interest groups.

This is another reason, (or part of the same reason), you need more parties. Minor parties get less funding are are accordingly more ready to raise flags and propose new ideas.

[GMichael]

They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution begins.

[Feanor]

It isn't just the system that's broken, its the amount of people who actually vote, and the amount of people who know who and what they're voting about. People might listen to campaign speeches but never look at voting records. ...

The news is no help. During campaigns the only information we get is salacious stories, both sides digging up dirt on the other and squabbling. Rarely is policy ever disgussed on local news or national news for that matter. The ones who are in office spend all their time stonewalling the other party, focusing on ways to make the other party look bad. Spin spin spin.

Gotta agree with that, 3LB.

See my famous Venn diagram ...

[GMichael]

Gotta agree with that, 3LB.

See my famous Venn diagram ...

But everyone thinks that they are the ones in the little white area.

[thekid]

To answer the question...... Yes in the sense that he was foolish to leave his most important stated goal in the hands of the inept Democratic House/Senate. He only got involved when the bill got in trouble but by then the damage was done because Reid caved in to too many special interests in the Senate version and this caused problems with the House. He needed to spend his post-election political capital on strong arming his own party members (the GOP was never going to go along with any of this) to get a bill passed that both controlled cost and expanded coverage. (See my rants in the Health Care thread).

Amazingly enough despite a complete fumbling of the health care issue, high unemployment and a shaky economy he still maintains a 50% approval rating. The Congress is in perpetual gridlock and like Truman did he needs to run against the "Do-Nothing" Congress. He needs to start dictating legislation from the White House and use the bully pulpit to get it passed. If his health care initiative goes down I think he should even consider the possibility of forming a third party while he is in the White House. That truly would be change you could believe in. The ramifications of this could be amazing given the high level of anti-Washington and anti-Congress feeling that is running through this country. It would free him to call out every back door deal being made by both sides of the aisle and probably allow him to raise enough cash that he could effectively run a presidentail campaign bid in 2012 without relying on the traditional sources of party money.

[blackraven]

We definitely need a President that will cross both party lines. All I see is 2 parties doing all they can to create subterfuge and derail each other.

[Feanor]

We definitely need a President that will cross both party lines. All I see is 2 parties doing all they can to create subterfuge and derail each other.

Really? Why does he need to cross party lines? This is all very foreign to me, a foreigner.

In a parliamentary system a prime minister with a majority in parliament only needs to control his own party and this is usually no problem. If a party MP doesn't vote with the party, he/she is kicked out of caucus and probably won't be allowed to run under the party banner in the next election.

But it seems that in the US, without the ability to control your own party, you have to kiss a lot of ass and do a lot deals with the other guys. I guess is why real legislation can't be get passed in the USA.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

We definitely need a President that will cross both party lines. All I see is 2 parties doing all they can to create subterfuge and derail each other.

And this is the major problem we are having right now. The atmosphere is just polluted with hostility, and now we are in grid lock at a time when we really need a huge breakthrough.

[Feanor]

And this is the major problem we are having right now. The atmosphere is just polluted with hostility, and now we are in grid lock at a time when we really need a huge breakthrough.

What mystifies me is that Obama or anybody else had expected anything different.

From a more distant perspective it is absurd to expect parlamentarians of different parties to cooperate. Yet that is apparently necessary in the US system; predicably there are problems.

[blackraven]

What I mean about crossing party lines is that he should not be bound to vote or support everything the democrats come up with and be against all policies that the republicans come up with. And visa-versa for a repulican president. You should not have to always side with the party line. I would rather see a neutral party president and a 2 party Senate and Congress.

But I would gladly settle for a 6yr, 1 term limit for all. That way there would b enough time to institute new policies and see if they work. Also it would help limit big business getting in bed with the Senate and Congress. They would not have to worry about getting reelected and they can concentrate on the job at hand.

[Ajani]

Obama throughout the campaigns and his previous political history, has been a man with a plan (often a slow moving one that is not obvious to his critics or supporters until it is near completion)... I Suspect that he is not actually a fool and knew that the Republicans always intended to frustrate any changes he attempts to make (such is the nature of politics and he dealt with years of that in Illinois )... My guess would be that he plans to strong arm the party eventually and just push changes without any GOP cooperation, and use the 'valid' excuse that the GOP were not interested in compromise... Had he just passed any legislation he wanted from the start without first giving the GOP plenty of rope to hang themselves, then everyone would criticize him for lying about his intention to be bipartisan. While now he can easily drop the bipartisan charade and people will cheer... As I said, I suspect it's all just strategy in a game of chess....

[Feanor]

...
Had he just passed any legislation he wanted from the start without first giving the GOP plenty of rope to hang themselves, then everyone would criticize him for lying about his intention to be bipartisan. While now he can easily drop the bipartisan charade and people will cheer... As I said, I suspect it's all just strategy in a game of chess....

Possibly so. Or maybe he'd have been better respected if he'd shown leadership form teh start. I would say he should never have talked so much about biparitisanship in the first place.

I have tried to make the point that elsewhere than in the US, bi- or multi-partisanship is not give the same emphasis. It really only comes up in coalition or minority government situations where it is given mainly lip service. It's never a factor when a government has a parliamentary majority.

[thekid]

I would disagree that the White House has had a strategy in this whole process or they would not be talking about "deem and pass" or reconcilitation. Whether it was post-election hubris or gross misjudgement of Congress the White House has bungled this for almost a year. Hopefully we can get past this health care debacle and they will have learned their lesson on how to effectively pass legislation. I think if they are smart they can use the anti-Washington sentiment out there to effective make much needed changes to a variety of problems.

[Feanor]

I would disagree that the White House has had a strategy in this whole process or they would not be talking about "deem and pass" or reconcilitation. Whether it was post-election hubris or gross misjudgement of Congress the White House has bungled this for almost a year. Hopefully we can get past this health care debacle and they will have learned their lesson on how to effectively pass legislation. I think if they are smart they can use the anti-Washington sentiment out there to effective make much needed changes to a variety of problems.

There is a big furor working up with the "Deem and Pass" thing, and it is laden with the usual political hypocracy.

As I heard (though might not fully understand) the House must vote (not not vote), on the rules for debate for the Reconciliation measures. In that context, the rules may "deem" that the Senate bill is passed without having a debate on the Senate bill per se.

I suppose this might shorten the process but I hear the real reason is so Democrates who don't like the Senate bill don't have to be on record as having voted in favor of it (per se). Personally I dont' see what the big deal given there will be subsequent Reconciliation amendments to the Senate bill. However it does give Republicans the opportunity to say that Pelosi and Dem House leadership are stifling debate and that there will be no vote on the Senate bill -- which is sort of true but misleading, (or "truthy" as Colbert would say). Of course, the record show that the Reps have in the past used Deem & Pass more often then the Dems.

So there is dissembling hypocrisy all round.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Obama throughout the campaigns and his previous political history, has been a man with a plan (often a slow moving one that is not obvious to his critics or supporters until it is near completion)... I Suspect that he is not actually a fool and knew that the Republicans always intended to frustrate any changes he attempts to make (such is the nature of politics and he dealt with years of that in Illinois )... My guess would be that he plans to strong arm the party eventually and just push changes without any GOP cooperation, and use the 'valid' excuse that the GOP were not interested in compromise... Had he just passed any legislation he wanted from the start without first giving the GOP plenty of rope to hang themselves, then everyone would criticize him for lying about his intention to be bipartisan. While now he can easily drop the bipartisan charade and people will cheer... As I said, I suspect it's all just strategy in a game of chess....

I absolutely agree with this. I think Obama is smarter than people really recognize.

[thekid]

There is a big furor working up with the "Deem and Pass" thing, and it is laden with the usual political hypocracy.

As I heard (though might not fully understand) the House must vote (not not vote), on the rules for debate for the Reconciliation measures. In that context, the rules may "deem" that the Senate bill is passed without having a debate on the Senate bill per se.

I suppose this might shorten the process but I hear the real reason is so Democrates who don't like the Senate bill don't have to be on record as having voted in favor of it (per se). Personally I dont' see what the big deal given there will be subsequent Reconciliation amendments to the Senate bill. However it does give Republicans the opportunity to say that Pelosi and Dem House leadership are stifling debate and that there will be no vote on the Senate bill -- which is sort of true but misleading, (or "truthy" as Colbert would say). Of course, the record show that the Reps have in the past used Deem & Pass more often then the Dems.

So there is dissembling hypocrisy all round.

I think I understand the process they are using but just because you can do something does not always mean that you should. If a member supports the bill and believes that the Senate will correct it in the reconciliation process then have the fortitude to vote for it. Using a procedure strictly for the purpose of providing "polictical cover" just provides further ammo for your critics and makes you look weaker not stronger.

I think Obama is a smart guy who some how allowed this bill to get away from them for a variety of reasons. As I mentioned a few posts down I hope he has learned his lesson about the abilities of Pelosi and Reid and will not let this happen again on other key pieces of legislation.

[blackraven]

All this new health care bill is going to do is provide coverage for about 30 million more people but not address the cost of health care and its problems. Its being rammed down our throats by Obama's administration and all it is going to do is increase the national debt. They should scrap it and work together with the republicans and come up with major changes and something that will work. But both sides are stubborn and have their own adjenda's!

[Feanor]

All this new health care bill is going to do is provide coverage for about 30 million more people but not address the cost of health care and its problems. Its being rammed down our throats by Obama's administration and all it is going to do is increase the national debt. They should scrap it and work together with the republicans and come up with major changes and something that will work. But both sides are stubborn and have their own adjenda's!

"ALL" it's going to do? Like that isn't significant and worthwhile?

But I suspect you're right that it won't address health care costs. For that you need an universal, single-payer system ... like, uhmm, Medicare but for everybody. Anybody talking about cancelling Medicare, (that socialist scam)? Don't think so. Indeed, hypocritical opponents the new bill complain that it will cut Medicare funding.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

[blackraven]

"ALL" it's going to do? Like that isn't significant and worthwhile?

But I suspect you're right that it won't address health care costs. For that you need an universal, single-payer system ... like, uhmm, Medicare but for everybody. Anybody talking about cancelling Medicare, (that socialist scam)? Don't think so. Indeed, hypocritical opponents the new bill complain that it will cut Medicare funding.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I don't want to get caught up in this debate again. I'm all for insuring everyone, but it won't fix the system and it will not drive costs down. Costs will go up and it will force people to buy insurance when they are on the fence as too whether they can afford it.
It is not doing anything to address the cost of care and drugs as well as the cost of health insurance. Its just a band aide on a very big problem. It will create more debt, raise taxes and the cost of goods.

There is nothing in the bill to limit end of life care, procedures and abuse of the system, product liability, etc.

The government needs to take more time and get it right. Recently they mandated that all hospitals go to an electronic medical record because they think it will save money, increase the quality of care and allow for hospitals to axcess records from other hospitals. We went to an electronic medical record as has all the hospitals in the twin cites and many across the country. Well the government was wrong. First of all, all the hospitals are using different elctronic mediacal records (EMR for short) and they can not talk to each other as the EMR companies use different OS's. Second, the EMR is maximizing billing now and actually driving the cost's up and costing the Government more money. Third, using an EMR to do charting is cumbersome, greatly increases waiting times in the emergency room and clinics as well as making it easier to make mistakes. Fouth, it has done nothing to increase the quality of care as a recent Harvard study has shown.

This is just another cluster fk created by our government because they moved too fast and did not mandate that all hospitals use the same EMR so they could talk to each other.

Excuse me if I don't have the confidence in the government to get thins right with this health care bill that is being rushed. Obama wants to push it through so they can say "look what we did" so that the democrats can get reelected.

[Feanor]

I don't want to get caught up in this debate again. I'm all for insuring everyone, but it won't fix the system and it will not drive costs down. Costs will go up and it will force people to buy insurance when they are on the fence as too whether they can afford it.
It is not doing anything to address the cost of care and drugs as well as the cost of health insurance. Its just a band aide on a very big problem. It will create more debt, raise taxes and the cost of goods.

There is nothing in the bill to limit end of life care, procedures and abuse of the system, product liability, etc.

The government needs to take more time and get it right. Recently they mandated that all hospitals go to an electronic medical record because they think it will save money, increase the quality of care and allow for hospitals to axcess records from other hospitals. We went to an electronic medical record as has all the hospitals in the twin cites and many across the country. Well the government was wrong. First of all, all the hospitals are using different elctronic mediacal records (EMR for short) and they can not talk to each other as the EMR companies use different OS's. Second, the EMR is maximizing billing now and actually driving the cost's up and costing the Government more money. Third, using an EMR to do charting is cumbersome, greatly increases waiting times in the emergency room and clinics as well as making it easier to make mistakes. Fouth, it has done nothing to increase the quality of care as a recent Harvard study has shown.

This is just another cluster fk created by our government because they moved too fast and did not mandate that all hospitals use the same EMR so they could talk to each other.

Excuse me if I don't have the confidence in the government to get thins right with this health care bill that is being rushed. Obama wants to push it through so they can say "look what we did" so that the democrats can get reelected.

Yeah, government won't get right right away -- though our perspectives are a bit different we agree on that. But now it's time to get the show on the road and improve it as the experience accumulates.

Its ironic that there's been a big hassle in Ontario about ERM. The Province was going to set up a comprehensive, province-wide system. Basically a good idea of course but the official in charge turned it into a typical private contractor boondoggle. She let out no-bit contracts to her cronys and other high-price help. (Shades of Haliburton and Blackwater, albeit on a smaller scale and for a much better cause.) She was fired -- with plush severance package of course.