Obama

[Alex]

That's one I actally agree with Bush on and therefore don't mind if Obama does it too (though if he ever said he wouldn't that's not good).

[innerSpaceman]

Just curious - which? The signing statements -or- the privacy of meeting participants?

[Alex]

Both to a degree.

I don't generally have any problem with secrecy of meetings or who the president consults for advice.

On signing statements I'm somewhat indifferent as they're probably legally meaningless. My preference would be that when presented with a bill that the president feels contains unconstitutional provisions that they just veto it. But lacking that I have no problem with them saying "I think this part is unconstitutional so see you in court if you want it enforced." Then the courts decide and if the president doesn't act (assuming the court finds with Congress) then I would have huge problems.

To the extent that Bush and Obama (and all the presidents before them) limit their signing statements to general discussion or highlighting elements they feel create a constitutional conflict I don't have a problem. I feel that Bush regularly crossed that line from issues of constitutional conflict to issues of policy conflict. So far, to the extent that I've looked closely at them Obama's have remained squarely on issues constitutional powers and conflicts.

[innerSpaceman]

So did anyone catch Obama's big televised heath care pitch and press conference? I missed all but the tail end.

Was there anything wonderful and magical and beautiful??

[Chernabog]

Change...hope... hope... change change..... health care reform.

There, I just saved you from having to read a news article about it.

[scaeagles]

I didn't watch it, but I wonder if he included the argument he's used previously that government run Medicare costs too much and is almost bankrupt so now we need an additional government run medical program to solve those problems.

[innerSpaceman]

From what I understand, he said single-payer is the only way to insure all Americans ... yet single-payer is not even being considered.

[Alex]

He has long been saying that if we were starting from scratch then single payer is the obvious way to go (whether you agree or not) but that we aren't starting from scratch and that it is a waste of time to chase something that is essentially impossible to achieve in a single step.

And he's right. Even if we go single payer on the coverage side it would be doomed to near immediate failure unless we also nationalize the care provision side (otherwise, what happens when the buyer is required to buy regardless of price? Prices go up, quickly). And that really is politically impossible in this country.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The more I hear about this, the sadder I get....but that's always been the case when politics gets down to brass tacks. I just can't handle the compromises necessary to get things done, because then they will be done poorly.

I've been slowly shifting from the "optimistic" to the "warily optimistic" to the "just wary" crowd. There are ways to do this, and all of them involve gutting the current system. They are not willing to do that. Not good.

[Alex]

I'm not sure why there'd be disappointment in Obama not fighting for single payer health care. He never suggested that he would.