Obama

[scaeagles]

Obama is floating stuff all over the place. He is first, and foremost, a politician, concerned with his reelection and the reelection of his party. The polling data I've seen (and I'm sure they have their own polling data that shows the same) alienating the independents and a lot of people who have voted for him. Another poll I saw showed that he's dropped around 20 pts in job approval from when he first took office. His stimulus that wasn't stimulus was one thing, and this health care stuff is the other.

Now I suppose I'm with JW to an extent that he should do what he thinks is right regardless of the polls. But he doesn't want lose his vast majority in the house and senate as Clinton did (in the House anyway).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Obama let the conversation get away from him. He waited way too long to respond to the b.s. claims the Glenn Becks of the world were leveling against his plans, and his response was to cave rather than reject the b.s.

I voted for him because he's a calculating man who thinks about every step he takes. Unfortunately he's taken that too far in his attempts to make policy. He's underestimated the ability of the talking heads to make truth by shouting it quickly and loudly. He'd better figure out real soon how to react to that before those ideas take hold in the public conversation or else he will fail from here on out.

[scaeagles]

He let the conversation get away from him? How many press conferences and townhalls has he had on the issue?

There are certainly those talking heads in the media that carry his water. Andrea Mitchell, doing a "news" story on the health care debate said that the protesters may not know what is best for them. And he HAS had the opportunity to make his point with his own staged and controlled town hall meetings. People just don't believe him. It doesn't go over well when protesters are called "evil mongers" by Harry Reid, and Pelosi implied they were nazis. There is audio (perhaps video) of Pelosi saying in 2006 how she loved disrupters, but that was because she was on their side.

Granted, Pelosi and Reid are not Obama. But he needs to gain some control over them. I think they are damaging him. And like Bush, Obama is trying to play to all sides and will end up losing his base as well as the independents along the way.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

He let the conversation get away from him? How many press conferences and townhalls has he had on the issue?

All way too late. By the time he was having them, there were already piles of lies out there that people were ready to stand up and shout angrily at him. I knew he'd lost the fight when he put out the pathetic request for people to send wrong-sounding things they'd heard to the white house email. They should have been out there hearing them for themselves and responding. By the time they were asking to be sent them, it was WAAAY too late.

And defend it as "freedom of speech" all you want, the fact is that the conservative movement has all but cornered the market on generating outrage and yelling half-truths and/or lies as an ends to a means. Conservative voices dominate the talk radio dial. And personally I'm glad that people who hold opinions closer to mine (liberals) simply aren't as good at that game. Liberals don't have the taste for the format the way conservatives to, to make a generalized statement. Just look at Keith Olbermann's ratings. He's undoubtedly just as skilled as O'Reilly or Beck, and I do find I agree with and am entertained by much of what he says. But he grew old for me very quickly and I don't think I'm alone. It just doesn't work for his potential audience, they don't buy into the outrage. But there are consequences to that, and I was hoping that Obama would find a way to inject his attitude of reason into the debate rather than just sit back and let it steamroll him like so many others before.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And defend it as "freedom of speech" all you want, the fact is that the conservative movement has all but cornered the market on generating outrage and yelling half-truths and/or lies as an ends to a means. Conservative voices dominate the talk radio dial. And personally I'm glad that people who hold opinions closer to mine (liberals) simply aren't as good at that game.

I certainly do not agree with that premise, and would in fact proclaim the opposite when it comes to elected officials. Reid and Pelosi as the leaders of the dem majorities and excel at it.

I don't think it's an issue of not being as good at it, but I think most conservatives who listen to talk radio or other outlets are fed up with what they perceive as the liberal bias in the declared mainstream media.

I've watched Olberman and (liek O'Reilly, whio I've never had a taste for either) he just seems angry all the time.

As far as Obama injecting his voice of reason....he does whatever he thinks is politically expedient, as is common to politicians. Everything Obama says is planned (not that there's anything wrong with that), but he stays on script and when off of it I find him pretty amusing. Like when he was arguing for health care and proclaimed how (the non government companies) FedEx and UPS do well while the (government run) USPS has all the problems. When he is off script or cannot read the teleprompter, he is not so reasoned.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I've watched Olberman and (liek O'Reilly, whio I've never had a taste for either) he just seems angry all the time.

Yes, he is, which is why I think he's failing. His audience that agrees with him doesn't have the taste for the vitrol that the conservative audience does.

[alphabassettgrrl]

A mandate won't help me get insurance- I don't have insurance because I can't afford it. Forcing me to pay for it won't make it more affordable.

You want to mandate a low plan that has a set pricetag, we might have something. What I want (personally) is a plan that covers only the big stuff- that I couldn't handle on my own. Like cancer or a car wreck. I'll pay for the preventive stuff that's quick and easy.

What I fear is we will get a minimum plan that covers the cheap stuff and still leaves me holding the bag for something big, and that's the one they'll force me to buy.

This "mandating" buying of insurance is the part that has me most concerned. I *can't* and nobody seems to address that in the politician world. And there are a lot of people worse off than I am, who will be bankrupted by having to buy insurance they can't afford.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

A mandate won't help me get insurance- I don't have insurance because I can't afford it. Forcing me to pay for it won't make it more affordable.

The bill includes not just a mandate, but if you can't afford it, methods for providing you credits that allow you to purchase it anyway.

You want to mandate a low plan that has a set pricetag, we might have something. What I want (personally) is a plan that covers only the big stuff- that I couldn't handle on my own. Like cancer or a car wreck. I'll pay for the preventive stuff that's quick and easy.

Then you don't want the Democratic plan at all even if it does have a public option. All versions of the bill would essentially make such catastrophic coverage impossible.

What I fear is we will get a minimum plan that covers the cheap stuff and still leaves me holding the bag for something big, and that's the one they'll force me to buy.

The main plan being considered requires coverage of all the small stuff, you can't be dropped when you get sick, and has a cap on personal expenditures within a year of $5,000 ($10,000 for a family). After those "deductibles" you're coverage is essentially 100% and unlimited.

This "mandating" buying of insurance is the part that has me most concerned.

Well, the public option wouldn't help with that either. It wasn't to be free. And it wouldn't necessarily be a lot cheaper than current private insurance. That's why it includes affordability credits (if I'm remembering that part of the bill credits were on a sliding scale all the way up to 97% of cost).

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

What I want (personally) is a plan that covers only the big stuff- that I couldn't handle on my own. Like cancer or a car wreck. I'll pay for the preventive stuff that's quick and easy.

I have a "catastrophic" policy through Blue Cross Anthem. I believe it's $70 a month (mom and dad graciously picked up the tab).

[Gemini Cricket]

The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it. Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year.
In court papers, the administration said it supports repeal of the law.

Source
I can't tell if Obama means it or if he's trying to distract the conservative wackos, give them something else to scream about instead of health care...