It has become fashionable to say that "elections have consequences" and it's time for President Obama to make himself consequential -- or as he so famously put it, the "Audacity of Hope."
So far in the health care debate it is the president's foes who are the most audacious.
CQ's Andrew Satter and Alex Wayne visit a recent town hall for some much needed fact checking of the claims advanced by both sides . . .
I couldn't go to school the morning after Robert F. Kennedy was killed. I had gone to sleep the night before, pleased that he had won the California primary, only to wake up learning that he was gone. It was a weirdly haunting recall of what is to this day my very first memory of watching television, seeing Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed in a live broadcast. Again, the world beyond my comfort zone seemed to be a horrible place. It wasn't until a day or so later, when Edward M. Kennedy eulogized his slain brother, that I could gather myself to go back to school. Much has been made of Teddy's emotionally strained voice in those moments, but it was his actual words that brought me around. Perhaps the saddest thing about Teddy's burial at Arlington on Saturday is that there were no brothers left to say what he said then -- but it's alright because, thanks to them, we can simply say it to ourselves:
"Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will someday come to pass for all the world."
I am honored and proud to have written an upcoming book with the incomparable, indefatigable and relentless Helen Thomas. With no reservations we concluded that John F. Kennedy was the best of our presidents in recent times. Here's what we wrote:
"Why do we say John Kennedy was our best president? Sure, there is a case to be made for others. But we make a fine distinction here between our best and our greatest presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt.
It was not just that Kennedy put the nation on a path toward racial harmony -- one that Lyndon Johnson advanced with the passage of civil rights legislation. It was not just that Kennedy and his elegant wife, Jackie, opened the doors of the White House to artists, musicians and other icons of our culture. It was not just that JFK was telegenic at the dawn of the television age.
Kennedy knew how to embody, nourish and advance what it means to be an American. The rest of the world looked at Kennedy and saw all Americans in a different way. They saw that America was the future, that our Democracy and respect for civil rights was a path for all nations to follow willingly -- and not just because we had the most weapons.
At a time when the threat of nuclear war was real and among us, Kennedy initiated the idea of negotiating treaties to curb the proliferation of weapons. Until then, world history had been all about building new generations of weapons and using them. For the first time, leaders of great powers stepped back from the brink and broke the vicious cycle.
Plenty of weapons have been made and used since, but Kennedy created an ethos among nations that, while there have been lapses, continues to this day. That next generation of weaponry, the massively destructive powers of nuclear bombs, remained sheathed for the generation that followed him.
Kennedy put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Let us hope and pray that it stays there. In announcing a test-ban treaty with the Soviet Union in 1963, Kennedy said it best, that the peace he sought was 'not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.'
To complement the hard bargaining with our enemies, Kennedy created the Peace Corps, which is still a fixture in our global reach. He understood that the world needed more than our military power to follow our lead. He called upon young people to enlist for a different tour of duty, to bring food, medicine and education to impoverished nations.
For such a young man and a new president, Kennedy was noticeably cool under pressure. During the Cuban missile crisis, when the Soviet Union's installation of bombs in our neighborhood sparked fears of a nuclear conflict, Kennedy managed the challenge to a peaceful resolution.
After Kennedy's assassination, then-President Johnson talked to reporters about what he had observed during JFK's marathon White House meetings to handle the Cuban missile crisis. There were many Washington veterans present, some who had been serving in powerful jobs when Kennedy was a teenager. But America had never faced such a direct threat to its security so close to our shores and many of the old pros were unsure about what to do. 'Kennedy was the coolest man in the room,' Johnson said. 'And he had his thumb on the nuclear button.'
Since Kennedy was in office, much has been written to denigrate his personal life. The press corps certainly looked the other way during his tenure, choosing not to pursue rumors about affairs in keeping with the tradition of his times that politicians' private lives were out of bounds unless they clearly affected service to their country. Such a quaint rule is long gone, and today Kennedy would not enjoy that zone of privacy.
Despite any personal failings, Kennedy's legacy as a visionary leader is intact. It is best symbolized by inspiring the country to walk on the moon. But it was more than a symbol.
Kennedy's challenge to send astronauts to the moon, which was met in less than the ten years he set forth, ushered in an era of technological advance that prepared the nation for the computer age. While born in the need to compete with the Soviets in space, going to the moon turned a corner at just the right moment in history.
Nations throughout history perish or flourish based upon how well they progress into a new age. America mastered the industrial age in the early 20th Century and, thanks to Kennedy's appreciation for the future of science, we mastered the technological age.
This is what our best presidents do. They prod us forward. They nourish our best instincts. They do not just lead our government. They lead us, make us better and, as a result, make us a stronger country."
-- "Listen Up, Mr. President: Everything You Always Wanted Your President to Know and Do," by Helen Thomas and Craig Crawford (Coming in October from Scribner)
There was a private moment that I witnessed with Ted Kennedy that I've never forgotten. Can't remember what year, or the circumstances, but it occurred after he and former South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond held a joint press conference in the Russell Senate Office Building about something regarding their work on the Judiciary Committee.
I happened to be within earshot of the two afterwards. Confident that the press was far gone, Kennedy tossed an arm around Thurmond's shoulder and as the two supposed rivals walked away I heard him say, "C'mon Senator, let's go trade some judges."
Which I'm sure they did. And that's what made Kennedy such a great legislator. He knew how to deal with his polar opposites, and make a fair trade.
As one who fought against Ted Kennedy in the bruising 1980 Democratic primaries, I must confess it was tough to forgive him for hurting Jimmy Carter's reelection chances that year -- until I gave up my partisan ways 25 years ago and became a journalist. [See Jonathan Allen's on-target recap of that campaign.] As I sat down to add my thoughts to the avalanche of Kennedy remembrances, it turned out that my candidate in that long ago race said it all for me.
Thanks to Trail Mixer "Bear" for finding this clip. As Bear noted, here is a "sterling example of what class is ..."
Only blind cynical partisanship can possibly explain the Democratic Party's tolerance of Charlie Rangel. As the evidence mounts against the New York congressman, nothing happens. Indeed, the House does not even make a sincere effort to examine the evidence. If he were a Republican we would be hearing holy terror from his side of the aisle. These hypocritical double standards, depending on which party is running things, are exactly what give the public so little faith in congressional leadership.
The last time that a special prosecution involved the CIA's world (indirectly) it was then-Vice President Dick Cheney's top deputy who took the rap for lying about outing an agent. Now that Attorney General Eric Holder has announced an independent probe of the CIA (for conducting torture during the Bush era), will Cheney himself become a target?
If Cheney ordered the torture of prisoners, surely the prosecution now authorized to look into the CIA practices will take notice. And presumably, anyone under investigation will point the finger at superiors -- all the way up the chain of command, wherever it leads.
Because these independent probes have a way of expanding, anything else on the former vice president's record -- like those allegations that he launched assassination squads -- could come into focus. No matter how narrowly these things begin (and this new one looks quite narrow), the trail can always widen, like when Ken Starr was only supposed to investigate Whitewater.
Unlike the break that Cheney's convicted aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby got in the end, George W. Bush won't be around to commute any sentences.
Would the world be better off with fewer people?
In any debate there's bound to be mass confusion when 11 out of the 12 most commonly repeated claims from the competing sides are false or misleading. And yet, that's what the public faces in trying to sort through what's being said about overhauling health care, according to a CQ analysis (Vetting the Health Care Rhetoric).
Which side's talking points are credible? Neither!
More Fact Checking
Public Option Supporters Rally on Capitol HillProduced by CQ's Andrew Satter
Brain cancer warrior Sean Holton takes on what we once called THE MASK in the latest entry of his new blog (Same Time Tomorrow), and reveals a pact we made nearly 20 years ago as young DC journalists. In response, I'll just quote from my favorite movie . . .
Bear Claw Chris Lapp:
Jeremiah Johnson:
"Yep, watch your'n."
Same Time Tomorrow: How Sean Holton Learned To Stop Worrying And Just Have Brain Cancer Instead
Now it's the liberals' turn to start yelling.
The "dumbikazes" on the right, as a pal of mine calls them, seemed to have spooked Capitol Hill with their high profile ranting at town hall meetings. The result is dwindling support, even at the White House, for offering a government-run public option to those who can't get or afford private insurance.
Unless supporters of a public option go dumbikaze whatever comes to be called "health reform" will be incremental at best.
Craig proposes the Trail Mix Health Plan for making Co-ops work. (Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter).
New on the Trail Mix Blogroll:
Carol's Southern Spice (ct)
Liberator Campaign (Patton's Boston Regiment)
Same Time Tomorrow (Sean Holton, aka "Lard")
Two things irritate me about what Sarah Palin falsely labels "death panels" in the Democratic health plan. First, how bogus that the news media turns Palin's Facebook blather into a national debate.
But that aside, what's really irritating about the proposal itself is that we have to have a law to reimburse doctors to talk to their patients. What? Doctors won't talk to families about end-of-life issues without getting paid? They're not getting paid enough for their medical services?
It's like a mechanic charging extra to explain what he did to your car. Who wouldn't be outraged by such a thing? But doctors have conditioned the marketplace to think that they don't have to talk to us without getting a tip mandated by Congress. What a joke.
Is it tragic or just plain ironic that health reform suffers along with Ted Kennedy? It was Kennedy, after all, who put Barack Obama on a winning path to the White House, vowing that his political ward would change things. Instead, the President is on vacation nearby the ailing Democrat this month (at a Republican's house) having changed nothing of substance. The wars abroad, so passionately opposed by Kennedy, are as big as ever. And the health care lobby that Kennedy spent his career opposing is winning again, thanks to Obama's acquiescence. Perhaps Ted and Caroline should regret their pivotal endorsement.
Maybe they shouldn't have called it an "option." A government run insurance program to compete with private companies, known as the public option, seems to be a non-starter. President Obama almost gave it a boost last week when countering the argument that private insurance couldn't compete with the government. Federal Express and UPS have no trouble competing, he noted, but then he undercut himself by noting that it's the Post Office that's always having trouble. In other words, if the government can't deliver the mail, it can't deliver health care. What chance there might have been for a public option disappeared with that less-than-convincing presidential endorsement.
President Obama staked the early days of his campaign on a promise to "fix health care" and "cover everyone" by "changing Washington." But as Capitol Hill whittles his plans to something far short of universal coverage, it looks like Washington wins again.
Here's what Obama said he could do in a 2007 ad:
Meet Up with Craig and Helen Thomas
(More events coming, Sign Up Here for email alerts)
Trying to sneak some time off for a day or two, but here are a few things on my mind:
I had wondered about President Obama's claims of AARP support for his health overhaul when he made it at a town hall this week. And sure enough, the White House is backpedaling.
What does Dick Cheney really mean when he says the "the statute of limitations has expired" on his Bush White House secrets?
Kudos to CQ's Jonathan Allen for noting that the "kill granny" provision isn't about saving money (or killing grandma), as critics claim.
Sure, this might seem self-serving now that The Economist/Roll Call owns CQ, but I do enjoy the Oxford-style debates on The Economist web site. Today's motion: Should we go back to the moon?
What's up with this talk of "big spending Obama," the President wondered aloud during his New Hampshire town hall on Tuesday. It was the Republicans who busted the budget in the last administration, he noted, by providing such things as prescription drugs for seniors without a plan to cover the costs.
Obama's spending increases for health care would be "paid for," he said. And yes, the President acknowledged, the tax burden would rise for the wealthiest Americans.
Here's where Democrats often get into political trouble. They believe in more spending and balanced budgets, which inevitably lead to higher taxes. The Republicans who were last in charge believed in more spending without paying for it. Politically, that's much more popular.
"I'm proposing something that will be paid for and they signed into law something that wasn't, and they had no problem with it. Same people, same folks. And they say with a straight face how we've got to be fiscally responsible." -- President Barack Obama, Portsmouth, NH (8/11)
Please Sign the Guestbook on My New Home Page
Town hall riots filled with Joe the Plumber wannabes are challenging President Obama's belief in the steady politics of intellectual calm. This isn't just about health care. It's about whether he can truly lead the country with his brand of what he calls "sensible and reasoned arguments."
Today in New Hampshire the President will greet his own crowd of potentially unruly town hall participants. His handlers ought to allow naysayers to ask plenty of questions.
If Obama is to win this argument, he needs to face the detractors head on. Confront the charges of socialism. Speak plainly and forcefully to the fears of higher taxes and diminished care if his health insurance overhaul becomes law.
This is a chance for Obama to prove that his measured and dispassionate style can triumph over chaos. Otherwise, the rest of his presidency could look a lot like these dog days of his first August.
Where's the conservative outrage at their side playing the Nazi card? When it was hurled at Republicans during the Bush era, there was no shortage of complaint (and rightly so). But now that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are deploying this beyond-the-pale insult against Democrats, conservatives are not clamoring for the stage this time to declare it out of line.
Now that both sides have foolishly accused the other of being Fascists, let's just call it even and shun irrelevant comparisons that dilute the horrific truth of Nazi evil.
How to Comment on Trail Mix
Visit my new Home Page
The President's health agenda needs a boost, and the nationally televised prime-time address from his Oval Office desk is about all that's left in Barack Obama's public relations tool box.
He's tried everything else -- press conferences, town halls, television interviews -- but the anti-reform message machine is outflanking him. Democratic lawmakers are getting hammered in town halls by organized gangs of diversionary protesters. Polls show a near-even split over his initiative, and growing fear about higher taxes to pay for it.
Obama's last prime-time press conference was intended to promote his health overhaul plans, but he lost the moment (and several more days) with a controversial answer to a question about the racially-tinged debate over the "policemen vs. the professor."
In better times for the President he might be right in thinking that it's too early to deploy the ultimate bully pulpit -- the Oval Office. Normally it would be better to wait until the final push, when there's actually something for lawmakers to vote on.
But the president's approval ratings are drifting down along with prospects for his health legislation. He needs a bonding moment with the whole country to make a forceful case. The Oval Office address offers that opportunity and, if it rallies demonstrable support, sends a clear signal to lawmakers that there are political risks in opposing him.
In the dark recesses of Trail Mix headquarters, Craig comes up with an intriguing theory about the return of the Clinton brand and what it means for the next presidential election.
(Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter)
Apparently, having "power" in Capitol Hill's health care debate is more about doing less. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Republican Charles Grassley are emerging as the power players in this struggle. Why? Because they are in a position to make sure that as little as possible is actually done to change our health insurance system. The stronger their power grows, the weaker this legislation becomes.
President Obama deserves a break on this cop-versus-professor mess. Sure, he instinctively assumed that the police got out of hand in a racially charged situation.
Gee, wonder where he ever got that idea? Chicago, maybe?
We've had a slew of presidents and a parade of Supreme Court justices who instinctively assumed that the cops are never in the wrong. Is it really so horrible to once in a while have a president who takes a different view?
Polls show that Obama took a glancing blow from the public in this little soap opera, but most Americans are not giving up hope on him for the long term.
Which is about how this one ought to end up.
Poll Track: After Gates Case, Whites View Obama Less Favorably
No one thought it could go the other way, but C-SPAN confirms that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has the votes to win Senate confirmation. The tally of commitments so far
shows only six Republicans planning to vote for her and 27 against (including Sen. John McCain's announcement that he will oppose her, claiming that she is an "activist" judge).
With 16 vacancies on U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals and one Supreme Court vacancy, President Obama is picking up the pace of nominations. Follow his progress with Judge Tracker on CQ Politics.
Lawmakers call it "recess" when Congress leaves town, but there will be no break for citizens as Washington's health insurance battleground shifts to their hometowns and television sets.
The August message war could determine whether President Obama gets a health bill to sign before the end of the year.
And it all comes down to what you fear (or hate) more -- insurance companies or government.
Democrats who advocate reform will try to harness public antipathy toward the insurance industry, selling their plan as salvation for consumers.
Republicans and conservative Democrats will tap into worries about big government running health care with budget-busting costs that lead to higher taxes.
This is how these health care debates usually end up getting framed, pitting public distrust of government against public anger toward insurance practices. Historically, fear of big government and taxes overwhelms the debate and nothing much gets done.
Obama has a month to turn that around.
Is Capitol Hill's number cruncher -- the Congressional Budget Office -- putting the squeeze on health reform? President Obama's hopes for an overhaul stalled in the wake of CBO skepticism about cost projections, a move that gave Republicans and Democratic "blue dogs" a chance to cast doubt.
But many experts argue against blind trust in the CBO.
"This emperor has no clothes," former Health Care Finance Administration official Bruce Vladeck writes for Roll Call in a withering assessment of CBO's accuracy.
Vladeck, now a consultant for the Greater New York Hospital Association, says the CBO has "routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures." For instance, the CBO overestimated the five-year cost of Medicare Part D -- the prescription drug benefit -- by more than 35%.
Even the CBO itself claims no special predictive powers. In a recent analysis of its economic forecasting over a 25-year period the bipartisan research group concluded that its performance was "parallel" and "comparable in quality" to predictions made by the White House and private industry from 1982 to 2007.
If the CBO is no better or worse than others at crunching economic numbers, and is once again overstating health care spending, maybe it shouldn't be such an influential scorekeeper in this debate.
