Does Obama Have What It Takes To Lead? Even Axelrod Wondered If Obama Could Take A Punch.
I said back during the primaries that, as a former executive recruiter, I just didn't see enough executive ability in Obama to make him an effective president. (People retorted that his well-run campaign proved me wrong. I didn't even try to explain that candidates don't run the campaigns - and if they do, it's the sign of a poorly-run campaign). But whatever.
When I used to recruit for C-level jobs (CEO, COO, CTO, etc.), I was often flooded with resumes from people who'd had similar titles, but no strategic experience -- and you could tell after a short conversation. They hadn't been in leadership positions, hadn't redesigned their organizations, designed any new initiatives, hadn't really moved the ball down the field at all. They thought that simply having and keeping a job with a high-level title was enough, and couldn't even conceive there was more to being a strategist. They were process people -- caretakers.
But they just wanted it so much. At first, I'd talk to my manager: "Couldn't we give this guy a shot?" But he finally drummed it into me: Putting someone in a high-level job for which he or she's not suited doesn't help anyone, least of all that new hire.
You can't will yourself into a strategic mindset. Either you have that kind of executive personality and thinking ability, or you don't. And I think it's pretty clear at this point that Obama doesn't:
WASHINGTON — President Obama signaled on Wednesday that he might be willing to scale back his proposed health care overhaul to a version that could attract bipartisan support, as the White House and Congressional Democrats grappled with a political landscape transformed by the Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race.
Senator Harry Reid said Democrats did not see a clear path forward on the health care bill.
“I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on ABC News, notably leaving near-universal insurance coverage off his list of core goals.
[...] Inside the White House, top aides to the president said Mr. Obama had made no decision on how to proceed, and insisted that his preference was still to win passage of a far-reaching health care measure, like the House and Senate bills, which would extend coverage to more than 30 million people by 2019.
Which reminded me of this:
While then Sen. Barack Obama was considering running for president, his advisor and friend David Axelrod worried in 2006 that Obama would have to toughen up for a White House campaign. Axelrod told Obama that he was thin skinned and he wondered if Obama could take the punches that would come in a presidential campagin.
"You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don't relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched," Axelrod wrote in a memo.
Axelrod's strategy memo to Obama is revealed in "The Battle for America 2008," a new book by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson about the 2008 presidential campaigns.
Obama's charmed political career came in part because of puffy, fluffy non-critical press coverage. Axelrod fretted about how Obama would do in the rough and tumble of a campaign.
'It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don't know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch.'"
Oh, my!! Must digest first. Hmmm...
far left loon >.<
Change we can Xerox??
"Sherman, set the way-back machine to April 17, 2008."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yel8IjOAdSc
far left loon >.<
.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
seems to be HCR. It seems that he turned it over to Rahm so as not to be bothered.
I used to manage a bookstore, and at one point I was looking to hire an assistant. (OK, bookstore manager is not a high-profile position of earth shattering consequence).
However, when I was interviewing candidates, my boss, the regional manager, told me something I've never forgotten. She said "Hire to your weakness"...meaning, know the area you're weak in, and hire someone who is strong in that area to compensate.
I think that's why he hired Rahm. The guy cusses like a Marine DI, is mean as hell, hates losing, and mails dead fish to people after humiliating them.
Obama couldn't have picked a better guy for the job.
Presidential leadership ability as measured by a candidate's ability to take a punch? And who hired you to be an executive recruiter, someone who worried about your ability to turn a phrase?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
That's no way to talk to a head hunter. No wonder you are unemployed.
she became a head shrinker. Don't they all engage in psychoanalysis without a license?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
.
mindset" of anyone.
Nor am I downgrading someone's executive experience because "candidates don't run the campaigns" in one part of a blog post which I have headlined to raise questions about his leadership skills based on a question posed about his ability to be a good "candidate."
The poster is doing both. The former is less valid than Dr./Senator Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo by videotape.
The latter is so evidently ludicrous and inherently contradictory as to need no further comment.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Are you being a shit to the author?
me-oww!
it is a critical aspect of being an effective blog poster.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
She deleted my entire post.
"Let's talk dirty to the animals"
more like it....
Lots of people describe Obama as a basically good intentioned guy who is in-effective or unable to deliver due to circumstances. All presidents are to some extent. My question is didn't Obama know this when he was campaigning and making promises? I think he did. It's like saying "I didn't know what I was getting into." He knew his hand would be forced, and willingly let the entire health care reform get eviscerated, while he still campaigned on the notion of a reform health care system.
Accounting Scene Investigator....
cleaning up the messes of upper management decisions...
my favorite thing to say to them was....
You can pay now...or you can pay later...
and now it's later...
this is a very kind explanation for why Obama has stumbled so often this past year...
personally I think everything is going according to plan, unfortunately, but the plan is not the one campaigned on.
looks like we y'all got lied to again.
floored, i tell ya.
Why don't "we" (I'm from Cannuckistan) have a "hammer" in the Senate. "We" have sop Harry Reid. I'm not doing cartwheels about Pelosi either. Where is the "attack" team, where are the shock troops, who's cracking blue dog skulls?
Bush had Cheney to do the lifting.
(Sorry for all that violence, and the "hammer" imagery, etc.)
far left loon >.<
Where's Joe Biden? Why isn't he putting some pressure on some of these obstinate Senators?
http://www.punch.co.uk/historyofpunch.html
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I thought Obama came out swinging today.
So I think he does know how to throw and take a punch.
That idea/meme that Obama is a hard-nosed Chicago pol who understands machine politics is way off, IMO. More than any other location, Obama is from Hawaii, not Chicago. He lived & worked in Chicago for many years, but that didn't necessarily endow him with the attributes of someone who spent their childhood there. Think of Rahm Emanuel: he was born & raised in Chicago and he studied ballet at Sarah Lawrence. Does anyone usually characterize him as a New York intellectual, or an East Coast dance major?
We humans are adaptable - malleable, even - but we also have the gift/curse of memory. I don't know the guy, but if he's like most of us, I would guess that the internal Obama is more Hawaii than Chicago.
When he reacted so badly to the Novak article. Of all the people to listen to, Novak was the worst. And then it turned out that Novak was hinting about the drug use in his younger days that Obama HIMSELF had revealed in his OWN BOOK.
I don't know to this day whether Hillary ever had anything to do with that comment, but Obama jumped on it without finding out. And then he went on to all those, Hillary is too ambitious. Hillary wants to win too much. Hillary is too emotional. And he can deny it or not, but that kind of comment IS sexist. How many women out there have NOT had some guy smart off about her "emotions" if she showed them even for a second. HE does something outrageous and SHE gets angry and HE blames it on her "hysterical woman" traits or on PMS.
Used to make ME furious when MY HUSBAND went into that mode and I recognized it in Obama too. I KNEW I was right when he told the female reporter, "just a second Sweetie, I'll get to you."
Unfortunately, too many of our generation raised our sons to believe that was OKAY. I'm so grateful my son isn't as bad, but even HE sometimes is. I tried very hard not to raise him like that because I very much resented, as a teenager, my own mother saying, "Boys don't DO that kind of work." when I had to clean my brothers rooms.
I wonder sometimes how Obama will explain to his daughters how he changed his beliefs to fit the Republican mantra on so many things.
Yet, if I recall correctly, Susie, you were a Hillary Clinton supporter.
That doesn't sound like "executive experience" was anywhere near your list of important qualifications.
You can't play "I told you so" when your original telling was, um, more than a little bit of a double standard.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You can't will yourself into a strategic mindset. Either you have that kind of executive personality and thinking ability, or you don't.
Wikipedia:
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
Even granting her stellar credentials as a scholar on childrens' law and a fantastic director on a board, it's simply not executive experience. I'm not saying these aren't good things, but they're not executive experience by any stretch.
I don't want to relive the HRC/BHO Wars by any means, but that whole "experience" meme was an out and out insult to our intelligence. HRC, Mark Penn & Ilk figured out early on that, in the Age of Terror, a significant advantage HRC had over BHO was that she looked "experienced" and had been in the public's knowledge for far longer, while BHO was not only much younger, but also much younger looking and not yet a household name.
So: "experience" was made the issue. Only problem: HRC's "experience" credentials for President of the United States were laughable. Fine, she had a law degree, but so do millions of other people. Despite one of the finest educations in the world, she couldn't pass a bar exam till she got to Arkansas. Once in Arkansas, she couldn't find a job practicing law and took a job at the school where Bill worked. After Bill's election as Attorney General, Hillary was offered a job with the most prestigious firm in the state. When Bill was elected governor, Hillary was made partner. Then came the directorships (including for-profits like WalMart) and other positions both Honorary to any First Lady and influence buying you can do really well when the First Lady has a license to practice law.
Then, First Lady of the US for two terms. And more of the same on a grander scale. Then Senator, as a direct result of Bill's power and influence.
That's a ridiculous resume for President. But Obama looked really young....
So. How did they think they could get away with attacking Obama's experience while not exposing HRC's vulnerability to the same?
Easy. Because any time someone even raised the inkling of a possible question to HRC's "experience," they were mercilessly attacked as misogynists having Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
I realize that my synopsis of HRC's resume is (deliberately and probably unfairly) more than derogatory, but it isn't inaccurate, misogynistic or deranged in any way.
Yet that made me a deranged misogynist. The killer on this for me was (on a personal level, and with no more credibility than any anonymous poster on the internet): HRC worked for The Rose law Firm. When an Arkansas corporation practiced sexual discrimination and was sued, the Rose Law Firm jumped right in - on the side of the corporation. Not only have I (white male that I am) personally opposed far more sexual discrimination and harassment in court than HRC, but her firm defended the filth.
But somehow I became the misogynist, and HRC, possibly the most politically privileged person in the country not named Bush, was somehow the victim of an unfair system.
Susie, even when I disagree with what you write, I still read every word. Sorry for the ramble.
Thank you for all you do.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
and I was not going to respond, but you obviously proved your point
by eliciting such a vigorous refutation.
To me the greater double standard is the notion that a former "executive recruiter" has the skills set required to assess the abilities of an individual he or she never met and who is the chief executive of the United States, which has to be operated unlike any other business or service organization due to its constitution. Very few organization have 100 member bodies indiependently selected where a minority gets to veto not only policy but management team choices.
This flaw, rather than support for any candidate in the past, indicates a severe deficiency in understanding how government does or should work. It is the source of the "government ought to run like a business" mantra chirped by Republicans who have lately so clearly demonstrated their leadership skills.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/how-ad...
Corruption favors the wealthy.
considering how unkind and unfair you thought my comment to be. I've responded there.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Thanks ricky.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/posr113009pkg.cfm
They also have a new January poll. Out today. December for some reason did not poll Public Option.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
While I agree that Obama is no strategist, his real problem is a lack of leadership ability. In fact, I'd argue that your criticism of his ability to be "strategic"-- among the most misunderstood terms in business-- is really a criticism of ability to lead. Using your "advance the ball" analogy, with the exception of Payton Manning, every NFL quarterback who leads his team up and down the field is directed by an offensive coordinator (aka strategist) upstairs in a skybox.
My view as a former C-suite member of a public company is that very few people in C-level jobs have any sense of strategy whatsoever. What really differentiates C-suiters is their ability to be decisive and, frankly, ruthless. Somebody has to decide, and the higher up you go on the food chain, the harder it is to make decisions for fear of being wrong, which gives rise to criticism. While there remains a continuum of management styles (e.g., conservative versus progressive) in the C-suite, you have to not care about criticism from those you lead (or even your colleagues).
Obama cares far too much about what other people think about him while simultaneously believeing that he can bullshit people into liking him by making a nice speech. While I admire his grasp of the details and his ability to articulate a vision, I no longer have any reason to believe that the visions he articulates are anything more than an illusion conjured to placate the masses that will actually listen to him (teabaggers are immune, for example). I no longer believe a word he says, and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that. Unless he starts delivering on what he says he will deliver, he is done as an executive.
I despised Dubya on many, many levels, but I can't help but wish that Obama had Dubya's leadership ability.
But most of our clients specifically requested strategic executives (as opposed to caretakers). It was usually inherent in the job description that they have leadership ability, because if they couldn't get the people on their team to follow, it didn't matter how good their ideas were.
And because that combination is so rare, it took a while. But that's why they paid us all that money! They usually came to us after trying traditional headhunters.
By the way, we pretty much broke MBAs down into types by graduate schools. Bush was a classic Harvard MBA - and many of our clients specifically requested we NOT send them any.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
of this edu-stereotyping? You really are clueless.
You agree with the guy who applauds W's leadership abilities, then say you wouldn't have given W the time of day because of where he went to school.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Bill has said essentially the same thing. He said that Obama should take his ideas and adapt the certitude that George Bush had in implementing them. If people have a problem with that, well, that's what twitter is there for.
What people want to see is action, not more talk. This thing, "notably leaving near-universal insurance coverage off his list of core goals", is unacceptable, and amounts to a defeat of health reform similar to 1994. This is the direct result of dithering.
And another thing that constitutes dithering is this endless pursuit of "bipartisanship". Bipartisanship requires a "loyal opposition" and Obama isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer if he hasn't figured out by now that he isn't dealing with a loyal opposition. I think that most Republicans have no qualms about harming national interests if it helps them politically.
comedian. Yes, we really need a President with the certitude of Bush. Action not talk. Results. And might I remind, disaster accompanied nearly all he so decisively touched.
I would suggest than a good bit of Obama's problems are due not to his leadership skills or lack tereof, but the damage done to both the country by Bush and the political divisiveness he furthered during his eight years. Obama's desire to address both is the source of much of the left's angst, and it may prove his greatest failing. But it is a problem that needs to be resolved because Bush thrived by letting Karl Rove persuade him to make the divisions worse.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Right now, the Senate right now has passed a health bill with near universal health insurance coverage. What Obama could be doing is dealing with the Democrats in the House to pass the bill into law. There's absolutely no reason subsequent to passing the Senate version into law why improvements couldn't be attempted through subsequent legislation.
The difference here is, there is one bird in the hand that supplies a near universal coverage that has only Democrats within the House as its obstacle. Obama should be dealing with Democrats, not Republicans. By being a Democrat President, he is the de-facto CEO and Chairman of the Board of the Democrat party, and he needs to start acting like one.
I don't see where the two birds in the bush, namely, a decent health reform is harmed by passage of the Senate health bill. Of course, that implies that I believe that the Senate bill is better than the status quo, which I do, because of the near universal coverage concept for the first time being enacted into law. One bird is better than no bird.
I think the failure of the Democrats, with their majorities to enact universal health care earns the Democrats in general, and the President in particular, a grade of F-.
he will not adopt just the strategic approach you suggest and attempt to get a bill passed that way.
Ignore for a moment the policy implications of the approach you favor.
The fact is that both the House and the Senate have, for the first time since the passage of Medicare, when Congress had a larger democratic majority and more amendable Republican minority, passed health care reforms.
Is Obama given any credit for that? No. You yourself gave him an F- before the task has come to an end.
On the policy end he is given blame by many for what Congress took out or put in to get those two versions passed. If you blame him you cannot accuse him of not leading. He made decisions. He cut losses. He took heat.
You can question his judgement, his priorities, even his integrity as many have done. But he showed skill. If you blame him for the bad bills. Because he got bills through both houses.
My own view is more mixed. I neither give him credit for getting bills passed becasue some belongs to Congressional leaders. Nor do I blame him entirely for having to put up with some bad provisions needed to get Senatorial primma donnas on board. I spent well over a decade working in a legislative body.
My judgement will be reserved for both the final legislative outcome and the politcal outcome. I have policy problems with what is in the Senate bill, but they are overshadowed by what I believe are its fatal political flaws. By the latter I believe the political danger many see in the Democrats doing nothing may be far less than the political damage of the provisions of the bill itself.
My point is that many are attempting to use either inherent bias against Obama or disappointment with policy outcomes to try and make assessments that he lacks skills to make things happen that no Presdnt can make happen. Then some of the same people turn 180 degrees and accuse him of abilities to get things done that would rival Machiavelli's
most competent and malevolent prince.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
"The fact is that both the House and the Senate have, for the first time since the passage of Medicare, when Congress had a larger democratic majority and more amendable Republican minority, passed health care reforms.
Is Obama given any credit for that? No. You yourself gave him an F- before the task has come to an end."
No, I only give him an F- once the task comes to an end, and the concept of "universal coverage" is found abandoned. I think you missed what I said.
"I think the failure of the Democrats, with their majorities to enact universal health care earns the Democrats in general, and the President in particular, a grade of F-"
That occurs once all is said and done. Of course it doesn't seem promising if the President is willing to abandon universal coverage.
--edit I did rely on this statement in this article in formulating my remarks "...notably leaving near-universal insurance coverage off his list of core goals. ..."
I may have been confused by your reference to the Senate bill needing to pass "because of the near universal coverage concept for the first time being enacted into law."
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/how-ad...
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Thanks. Addressed where you linked.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
What the Senate Right now has passed is a healthcare Insurance bill with near universal health insurance Mandate, with absolutely no limits on the Healthcare Insurance Complex profits, and the Federal government as their Enforcer through Punitive Fines. And there truly IS an absolute reason subsequent to passing the Senate version into law why Improvements will Not be attempted through subsequent legislation. The Corporatist shills of both political parties are in Effective Control of both houses of Congress, with the very recent USSC decision regarding campaign financing Guaranteed to make Corporatist control Permanent.
The "bird in hand" of which you speak is the Corporatist shills, including the Obama administration, flipping the majority of the American people "the bird" with this HCR bill POS. The resistance in the House of Representatives is not from Republicans nor from the Corporatist Democrats -- it is from the more liberal progressive members of the Democratic Party who recognize that the will of the Majority of the American people is for a universal public option like Universal Medicare/Medicaid. The result of that recent special election in Massachusetts was a repudiation of the current state of HCR in the Congress, the Obama administration's position in that regard, and the general lack of transparency in that process. President Obama, as "CEO and Chairman of the Board" of USA ( Inc. ?) cannot introduce legislation, but he could have taken a public stand (the bully pulpit) for a HC PO, like he campaigned for.
If you cannot see where the "two birds in the bush" of decent HCR is harmed by the passage of the Senate healthcare bill, then you have either not been paying attention, or else have a personal financial stake in the "game". This HCR bill doesn't take effect fully until 2014, while the mandates come sooner. While the big issue of preexisting conditions is addressed, any restriction on HIC profits, and hence premium costs, are ignored. The CBO scored this bill, and projected HC annual premium costs to rise from the current 6,000 USD$ average today to 12,000 USD$+ in 10 years for an individual, a rather conservative estimate AFAIK. If you believe that creeping incrementalism will work for HCR, then please explain the current state of Medicare Part D, which has always sucked and with no improvements in sight.
No, the Senate HCR bill is a POS apparently based upon the Mass Care plan already in existence, and already deemed by many in Massachusetts to be an abject Failure. The status quo is far better than what the Senate HC bill represents, and the very few good bits from both the House and Senate bills would be better to be considered on their own instead of proceeding with these cluster-flocks -- in other words, healthcare insurance Reform minus the healthcare provisions.
The single point that I will agree with you on is that both the Congressional Democrats in general, and the President in particular, deserve a grade of F- regarding healthcare reform.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
I have active employee insurance. I can retire tomorrow with retiree insurance. I have enough cash to purchase the insurance outright, let alone handle the $15/month premium of retiree coverage, and the chump change deductibles, copays and co-insurance. $1500 max, if I'm dying.
My personal financial stake would be if, there was problems with the employer program, then, I could deal with the Senate plan, especially since it deals with income, and doesn't require one to deplete assets. But, it's not more likely than not that this would come into play, so I don't have a huge personal interest. But, I could think of a whole lot of people I know who do.
The status quo means for the 40 million or so uninsured that the hospitals can stabilize and then discharge the patient. There is no obligation to cure. The uninsured is given a death sentence, as we saw on 60 minutes regarding the case in Nevada, and state run Medicaid. There was no payment for chemotherapy. And the status quo also means that sick people can't buy insurance if they want to. Once they have no insurance, they're typically charged 3 or 4 times as much as an insurance carrier is charged for the same service, driving them into bankruptcy court that much quicker.
Nope, from what I can tell, the Senate bill is a bird in hand.
Senate bill is here, by the way.
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/Health_Ca...
... since I have, what some consider a "Cadillac" plan, the plan is subject to surcharges by the Senate plan. That will turn my plan into a "high deductible" plan. I say, pass the Senate plan anyhow. Enshrining the "universal" concept into law would be a major step.
I think, no matter what, the costs of medical care will have to be taken up anyhow, since if it isn't, eventually medical costs will consume all of GDP, and the only time one can eat is when one gets a prescription for a Big Mac. So, even if the current effort doesn't do anything with costs, getting the "universal coverage" aspect is most important. There's no choice but to deal with costs eventually. I never expected to get everything in one fell swoop. That is not realistic, given the amount of corporate induced corruption within the government.
I don't want to hear President Bozo talking about forgetting about universal coverage.
That 40+ million Americans without HC insurance either cannot afford it, or cannot even qualify for it due to preexisting conditions. I am one of those Americans. Most of the unemployed and underemployed and employed but uninsured cannot afford HC insurance, even if the matter of preexisting conditions was removed from consideration. They will be mandated to obtain HC insurance or face Federal enforcement through Fines, which will also go to the HC insurance companies. Without the cost containment of a robust universal public option like Universal Medicare/Medicaid ( <2% overhead), HC costs are rising at better than 3x times the COL. For these 40+ million people to afford HC coverage, the Federal government would have to intercede with subsidies -- subsidies which will bust the Federal budget. Neither the House nor the Senate HC bills address the root problem with HC insurance in the USA -- the business plan. by design, makes a rather substantial private profit ( 30% overhead ) from denying HC procedures to their customers ( all while taking their premiums anyway ). In the USA's private for-profit HC system, people needing HC are "customers first", not "patients first".
The Corporatist / Fascist meme of "Privatized Profits and Socialized Risk" comes to mind. As previously stated, the Senate HC bill is a clone of the Mass Care plan writ large, which is already in fiscal trouble. And you want this program to be repeated all across the USA ?
Why not Universal Medicare/Medicaid ?
Why do you hate this country ?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
"Why not Universal Medicare/Medicaid ?
Why do you hate this country ?"
Paticularly the latter. Dealing with the former:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/25/b...
I have posted many times that since, businesses such as the one I work for, self-insure, that we should also self-insure as a nation, ie, Medicare for all. Kucinich was my boy. I often posted that we should have done what Ross Perot said, which was to evaluate the health care programs in the other industrial countries and copy the best one. That would still wind up with a single payer system.
With regard to the latter, I have opposed being the worlds policeman, opposed "free trade", opposed the patriot act, endorsed the prosecution of the rating agencies for conspiracy to defraud purchasers of the falsely rated "AAA" mortgage backed securities, opposed the Iraq war from the start, oppose the "war on drugs" in the current form which has as it primary purpose to maximize hlack market cash flows which is kicked back in part to the politicians and maximizing a private prison enterprise. I'd like to cut the defense budget in half.
So, I hate this country because of a fractional ripoff versus a ripoff that is occurring anyhow, in order to enact "universal" health care? You're delusional. It's not like, without this bill, we won't be ripped off. We're paying 50% more for health care than other nations. With this bill or without this bill, we're being ripped off anyhow. I would say, it is not an issue of hating this country, but rather, an issue of hating the people who the present system has sentenced to die. You may want them to die, I don't. That's the difference between you and me. While I am not a particularly religious person, I am quite confident that my position is consistent with the morality of the church I attended, and was confirmed in.
"...he Federal government would have to intercede with subsidies..."
That's it. You say "I am one of those Americans..." who can't afford health insurance. Well, let these geniuses with their health subsidies help you out.
"the Federal government would have to intercede with subsidies -- subsidies which will bust the Federal budget. " Wait a second, let's get the costs in order. What does health care for the uninsured cost, maybe $100B a year? What does defense cost, $500B/year? Before the wars? I know what is busting the budget, and it's playing the world's policeman.
in spite of the probability that Federal subsidies might be available to someone in my position, because of the other very bad things that it does to the American people in favor of the Healthcare Insurance Complex. I do not take the attitude that "hey, this Senate bill takes care of my personal immediate circumstances -- I've now gotten mine, and screw everyone else !". If I were gainfully employed in the Healthcare Insurance Complex, I might also be enamored of the Senate HCR bill.
First of all, I don't presume that people already enrolled in some insurance program would prefer that Universal Medicare/Medicaid of which I spoke, including retirees already on Medicare, who will suffer a big cut in Medicare/Medicaid in order to fund this change.
Secondly, the Senate HCR bill uses a combination of Mandates and punitive Federally enforced Fines to obtain compliance, to the sole benefit of the Healthcare Insurance Complex, instead of a voluntary universal public Option to opt-into Medicare/Medicaid. If you have been paying attention to the brew-ha-ha in Massachusetts over their Mass Care program, you would know that many there hate that program, which is also BTW rapidly bankrupting both the State and their people. Mass Care looks an awful lot like the Senate HCR bill, and they are both fiscally unsustainable models designed to enrich the Healthcare Insurance Complex.
Thirdly, in both instances ( Senate HCR bill and Mass Care ), there is little effort to either cap HC costs & premiums nor the abusive even obscene level of profit margin ( >30% ), a portion of which is immediately redirected back into the pockets of the politicians voting in their favor. Without serious HC insurance reform, such as the elimination of their grant of immunity to anti-monopoly statutes AND the reduction of profit margin in the Healthcare Insurance Complex -- perhaps even forcing them all into non-profit status with caps on executive pay, the Senate HCR bill ( like the Mass Care plan ) will bankrupt both the Federal government and the American people individually simultaneously. Neither is sustainable over the long term.
Fourthly, the Senate HCR bill does not fully take effect until 2014, instead of almost immediately, which will cost the lives of about 200,000 additional Americans ( 45,000 per year ) due to not having proper healthcare. In case you haven't been paying attention, the number of unemployed, uninsured, and under-insured is still growing, which will increase those statistics. This is a cynical ploy by our bought-and-paid-for politicians to buy a "bump" in popularity JIT for elections, with the fiscal downside (and coverage) not to become an issue for 4 years.
As you noted, there is plenty of "fat" in the Federal budget that could otherwise be used for ( gasp ) a truly universal single-payer healthcare system instead. IPOF, DefSec Rumsfeld announced that the DoD had somehow misplaced 1.2 Trillion USD$ on 10 September 2001. Oops! I am as much opposed to the USA's foreign military adventures as any Liberal Progressive. Defunding our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen & (pending) Iran would cover Universal Single-Payer Healthcare for more than a decade, easily. However, such changes, like reducing the DoD / MICC funding by 90% over 10 years will not likely happen -- the MICC is a jobs program in and of itself. Imagine what the unemployment rate in this country would be without the MICC.
No, our politicians would be better off, as would everyone except the Healthcare Insurance Complex, if both the House AND the Senate HCR bills were to be scrapped, with a new goal of opening up Medicare for All this year - 2010.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Dubya's leadership ability? I suppose if you consider (I consider) a rather simplistic, single-minded ideologue, backed by a party of like-minded men, and Cheney making all the tough decisions, while W pimped them to the public in Cowboyese, I'd say he did get a few things done.
2 wars
torture
banks out of control
no energy policy, except use lots and lots of imported oil
...you really want the rest of the list (or do we know it by heart now)?
These things were also done in a time when dissent was UNPATRIOTIC, counter to NATIONAL SECURITY, and got one in deep doo-doo, because of the terror whipped up because of that fateful September day. No resistance.
Katrina would have been an opportunity to show clear thinking and real leadership when it was needed, but where was he? A Padres game? A birthday party?
Like I said, I'll think about Obama, and Susie's article, but I already know who G.W.B. is/was (a puppet).
far left loon >.<
Tax cuts for the rich by borrowing from China. That killed two birds with one stone, enriching his constiuency, and "starving the beast" of the federal government, which, hopefully, would lead to the repeal of the New Deal programs, like Social Security, and subsequent programs of the same ilk, like Medicare.
The appointment of Exxon's lawyer to oversee environmental policy.
The advancement of the "unitary executive" concept, where, in times of "war" (undeclared), the President has unilateral power. I think that concept is short one Supreme Court justice from being law.
Patriot act, the elimination of FBI agents to fight white collar crime, such as was perpetrated by the Wall Street financial syndicate, wiretaps without probable cause, or even a reasonable suspicion in violation of the 4th amendment - I'd say, Bush got a lot done.
How much got done due to 9/11?
How much would you attribute to the inherent leadership skills Bush brought with him to the oval office. Skills which Ms. Madrak cites in her post as needed, then in a snide comment says must be assumed not present in Bush by professionals such as herself because his MBA was from Harvard.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
his MBA from Harvard, like his 'C' grades from Yale were purchased with a shiny new building, or substantial endowment to the university.
Where've you been?
me-oww!
... you forget that after his legacy education he failed multiple businesses and traded Sammy Sosa.
You'd think with his PhRMA connections that should have been a no-brainer.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
..., but it doesn't help people like me, or presumably like you, which is why I voted against Bush in both elections.
I think I forgot to mention that during Bush's tenure, that corporate profits hit an all time high as a percentage of GDP.
Elaine Garzarelli : “And I think the reason is that corporate profits, as a share of GDP, are at an all-time high.”
Bush was quite effective in widening the gap between the super rich and the rest of us. I do suppose he was a big failure in failing to give the same Wall Street financial wizards who brought down the economy, control of Social Security.
George W. Bush is an elder statesman for disaster relief. It is unanimous among those that matter. Katrina is simply not "bipartisan."
And how could such an elder statesman be associated with icky things like "torture" or Wall Street influence? That would make him a fucking criminal, and he's so obviously an "elder statesman." It's bipartisan!
I'm thinking the Medal of Freedom should be next.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
lounging around on a rich Canuck's yacht. I guess all that plane unloading and hospital building wore his brush clearing arse out.
me-oww!
I was thinking the Hague and a rope would be a more fitting location and accessory. But only after a trial, and only IF he's proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We are different than them.
But, unfortunately, we must look forward and not back. And, looking solely forward, George W. Bush was a president associated with a disaster; he is therefore an elder statesman in his element. His merely sitting on a yacht helps Haiti. I'm not sure of the actual statisticesices but I'm sure the result is bipartisan.
[an aside: I couldn't spell yacht with less than three spell checks. Where did that word come from?}
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I just can't type it correctly. Or a lot of other things. Must be Rahm fingers.
And tell Miss Kitty that the ban on Bush wasn't how he got his MBA or how he performed while getting it, but where he got it. You know, Harvard business is kind of like Liberty law. It stereotypes you. On second thought she'll probably read it here herself.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
at this point that he doesn't have what it takes to lead. Otherwise, why would he leave it up to Congress to craft HCR? He should have taken the lead on that; not just make suggestions and hope for the best?
He also has poor judgement; case in point, he thinks he can negotiate with people who clearly want him to fail and will do whatever they can to sabotage his agenda. He better change tactics quickly.
obama is showing clearly that he will be a very weak leader.
he talks and talks and talks and then talks some more on how much he is getting done for the american people then talks some more
he still thinks the repubs will work with him
he must be blind deaf and dumb
we needed a roosevelt we got a carter that give great speeches lots of speeches.
this is about all he knows how to do is give speeches
when the going gets tough he gives speeches.
demos give up your reg and sign up as an independent and dump them demos they no longer represent you
follow the money they get their money from the same folks as the repubs'
they pretend to represent you to get your votes
the capitalists now have the white house, congress, and the supreme court.
corp fascism has come to america via capitalism.
of this has begun on a new blog from students at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy:
http://demagoguesanddictators.blogspot.com
I've been thinking much the same thing for a long time now, and Suzie's comments only tend to confirm it.
This is a guy who has essentially moved from the musty halls of academia to the most demanding executive position in the country in one leap, and his lack of experience in such a role has I think been pretty obvious. He just doesn't seem to know how to take the lead, or stamp his authority on a debate, as for example Bill Clinton could. The question, I think, is whether he is able to adapt to his new role and "learn on the job", or whether he's going to continue to be a ditherer for another three years. Judging by Suzie's comments, I guess the latter is more likely.
Too many Fox news talking points for me. Care to rephrase?
far left loon >.<
He stamped and he stamped. He got health care bills through neither House. Dems lost Congress to the R's. Clinton got re-elected. Obama has gotten health care bills through both houses without stamping. Dems have yet to lose Congress. Dems have gained a seat and the House and remain in the same position in the Senate as we were Obama was inauguratged (discounting the absent fellow from Minn.)
Bottom line. Obama is a big loser compared to Clinton and will not get re-elected.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Both the House and the Senate have passed versions that contain a concept of near "universal" coverage. I think the exclusion is for people who don't use medicine as part of religious beliefs, illegal aliens, and those who want to pay the penalty tax (which is a lot cheaper).
But, it's sounding like he wants to abandon the "universal" coverage in order to continue a bipartisan effort to appease Republicans. WHAT IS IT THAT OBAMA DIDN'T GET? The Republicans LOST in 2008. Now start dealing with Democrats, not Republicans. That's the executive aspect that is missing.
I'm not saying I was a fan of Clinton, just that he knew how to make a decision and how to sell it.
Obama came to the White House with a huge amount of political capital, much of which has been frittered away already. He also had absolute majorities in both houses. Now people are already talking about losing Congress later this year. If you think that's a good performance, you are entitled to your opinion, but it's clearly not the opinion of many people who voted for him.
You nailed it .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
David Axlerod to Barrack Obama: "You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don't relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty."
Jeez! If Obama truly does care what people say about him, someone needs to take his shoelaces away from him.
It first occurred to me months ago watching Obama seeming unable to get things done with a Democratic congress:
Aside from his ability to make good speeches, the guy is Jimmy Carter.
And we all know what happened in 1980, don't we?
He really does need to grow a pair, as does every member of the democratic leadership in congress.
"Strong and wrong will always trump weak and right".
The late night thing is a re-run, too.
I don't see where Hillary (even though she did sit on the board of directors of Wal-Mart) would have done any better than Obama up to this point in his term. It was only a matter of time before the memory-challenged, ignorant, superstitious, dull-witted populace would blame Obama for the pile of shit shrub left.
Obama has to work with a collection of loons in the House and Senate. The low quality of our representatives reflects the low standards of the electorate. If we had a better class of citizen we would have universal health care. We would be heavily invested in converting to cleaner energy, getting less dependent on foreign oil. We would have affordable, high quality education opportunities available for all. We would have tighter controls on the financial industry. We would have marriage equality.
But we don't. It's not Obama's fault. It's the fine citizens of this declining country. Shrub, and Repuglic**ts in general, are far more effective in getting what they want because they count on the general stupidity of Americans, and pull all the strings that manipulate the dullards that elect them. Fear and ignorance carry the day more often than not around this country, and you are in the minority when you try to use reason and intellect to fight it.
I was listening to progressive radio today, and I heard a very fitting name for Barack Obama. “Tiger Wuss.” Tiger, because Barack Obama is a paper tiger—all bark and no bite, and “Wuss” because Obama is suck a fearful weakling.
"Wuss"
I know what it stands for, and it is not weak.
Haven't seen evidence that he even HAS a punch in his skillset. Can dish it out in a way that his foes take heed? Apparently not, as he pathetically let some yahoo in AZ prance around him at a Town Hall armed. Get's insulted by a TV network and all Repugs daily and hasn't found a way to hamstring and humiliate them. As for tactics to extract payback from the Liebermans and ConservaDems? He gives them pork.
Harry Reid taught him everthing he needed to know.
For many of us, all that talk of BIG CHANGE led many of us to believe he was ready to fight for that change. I feel mislead in much the same way I felt in the after-math of the war for weapons of mass destruction.
One thing we did know before the election. Hillary can take a punch and come back fighting. She lost me on the "tarmac landing under fire", but that was a little white embellishment and nothing like "weaponons of mass destruction and BIG CHANGE".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86IpU3g-S8Q
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... by his "leadership" up to know... he couldn't lead a two car funeral.
His opponents have said time after time, healtcare will be Obamas
Waterloo. So what does Obama do? He turns healthcare reform over lock stock and barrel into the hands (the Congress)of those very same people who wishes he fails. Only an idiot would do that.
Instead he should have mustered up his party, gave them marching orders and told anybody not carrying the party line will be politically crucified.
Can you please stop taking every opportunity to bash Obama? You've been doing it since the Democratic primary, and it's wearing thin.
There's a reason I stopped reading your blog.
Let's see: Should I be writing about what a great job Obama's doing? How he bravely and effectively led the charge for universal health care and carbon emissions regulation, and how he revived the battered economy? Because, uh, he didn't.
Can you give me some clue as to the good news I should be spreading? Believe it or not, I look for good news every day. It's difficult to find.
And by the way, saying that someone's personality seems completely unsuited to the demands of the job and giving examples of why I think so is not "bashing," it's merely pointing something out in hopes of pressuring him to do better.
My loyalty is not to any candidate or elected official. It's to the stated principles of the Democratic party, and the welfare of our country. If I see an elected Democrat deviate from those stated principles (especially if he or she publicly supported them), you're damned right I'm going to write about it.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
He's not. He's an opportunist, more concerned with power than the nation. He's just one more Obama appointee whose personal agenda has no relationship to the campaign Obama ran.
I can understand "hiring to your weakness." What I can't understand is "hiring for experience, even if it goes against all you stand for." Obama better get control of his attack dogs or they'll drag him straight to George Bush's home. He's well on his way there now.
All things in moderation ... including moderation
Comments are closed on this entry