Is it just me, or maybe this notion is just my expression of an idea that has been cropping up in the various blogs I read and news/opinion sites I frequent?
Does it strike other people as presumptuous that with all his pontificating on health care,* the President still hasn’t come forward with a particular plan with specific details of what he intends to do. Instead of legislation (or even a draft of his speech), he delivered a laminated copy of talking points to the legislators assembled to hear his address last week.
With a plan, he could show clearly that this or that provision is not in the bill. And those who oppose the overhaul could identify the particular provisions which concern them.
Yes, I know that today we’re celebrating Constitution Day and it took the delegates an entire summer to hammer out the Constitution, but those pressing for ratification did not do so until after the delegates had agreed on a final document. I know the situations are different. But, one thing is the same, if you’re going to ask for popular support, shouldn’t you have a particular plan you want people to support?
*According to George Will, “His speech to Congress was the 122nd time he had publicly discussed health care. Just 14 hours would pass before the 123rd, on Thursday morning.”
POSSIBLY RELATED**. Megan McArdle finds that Congress has never passed legislation this large without bipartisan support:
I’m reliably informed that the Democrats think they’re better off doing this alone than not doing it at all, and so it has to pass. If so, it will be the first time in history that I can think of that a single party passed anything of this size–certainly not a major new entitlement. Medicare and Social Security both had considerable Republican votes, something I don’t see this time around.
**Or maybe I just think it’s related because I recalled McArdle’s post as I was writing this on. It’s late at night as I write, setting this up to appear at mid-day on the blog.
Huh?
Given that it is Constitution day, why not contemplate the President’s profound respect for the legislative process, and his desire to have all voices, including those few Republicans who might approach this issue with good faith, have a chance to have their concerns heard, and to contribute to the final process. Can’t remember where I heard it, but one of the House committes accepted 161 amendments from Republicans – and of course still didnt get any of there votes. but that is another issue.
The President laid out some very clear and specific principles which should guide the process. And by “selling’ those principles, he has manged to drive and focus a national debate on just what it is that the American people want. Any day now, I am still hoping the the rightward parts of our political spectrum will stop thier over-the-top fear mongering and lunatic style of argumentation, and finally get down to specifics.
Over the next month or so, the two houses of Congress will finalize thier own versions of the bills, and then they will conference, with the President chiming in I’m sure, and then we will have a bill. Then another, and final round of debate can ensue on this final product.
Isn’t that the way it is supposed to work? A ground-up effort from the people through their representatives in all its sausage making glory? Rather than some neatly tied up package handed down from on high?
Wouldn’t you be the first and amongst the loudest to denounce Obama the dictator if he had actually done what you propose?
…it took the delegates an entire summer to hammer out the Constitution…
Only an entire summer? To create a system that still works 200+ years later?
We should be so lucky to have such men (and women) as our national leaders now. Unfortunately we’re stuck with the current crop of jackasses.*
*I said it on the record. 🙂
yawn. more “outrage” over nothing. why not craft an argument worth fighting, rather than feign indignation over something so trite? oh, yeah, the repugnant right has nothing positive to offer, so they just bitch and moan and cry like the babies they are.
Wouldn’t you be the first and amongst the loudest to denounce Obama the dictator if he had actually done what you propose?
+1
We all know that if Obama had written his own legislation we would be hearing about Emperor/Czar/Shah Obama’s disrespect for Congress’ role in the process. In this case, he asks Congress to do their fricking job and the right finds fault. Shocker.
[torrent, read the post, starting with the tittle, it’s about the presumption of the president pushing this issue in a very public manner without attaching himself to any legislation. –Dan]
Once, again, Tano, at the risk of sounding mindless or insulting, let me ask if you read my post. It’s about the presumption of the President pushing this issue in a very public manner without a particular bill that he backs. Fine that he has laid out some principles, but why take the trouble of delivering an address to a joint session of Congress, a very rare thing, before having crafted that bill.
Again, I refer back to my text, you know of the post to which you attach your comment, about the Constitution–“but those pressing for ratification did not do so until after the delegates had agreed on a final document.”
And once again, you misrepresent what I propose (so you see why I repeat the point about your not reading my posts). I never said Congress shouldn’t hash this out in a deliberative process. In the post (see title, note question mark), I wondered if it seemed presumptuous for the President to make such a public pronouncement before that process was complete.
Because, right now, we still don’t know what particular bill the President backs.
Actually, if he had to make the address, the ideal would be, as Reagan who delivered such an address pushing his economic recovery plan in 1981, said something like this, “Congress, here’s my bill, now act,” fully expecting them to deliberate over it and possibly amend it (as they did). Instead, Obama said, “Congress, here are my principles, now come up with a bill.”
It all goes to the President’s basic problem of outsourcing everything to Congress. It’s one thing to demand they act on his legislation without deliberation (what you seem to be accusing me of suggesting). It’s quite another to demand, as he has done, they act without providing a blueprint (all he’s providing are guidelines).
What I’m suggesting (though granted largely implicitly in this post) is that he do, as Reagan said, attach himself to a particular piece of legislation and negotiate with Congress on addressing their issues of concern.
It would be nice to know what it’s the bill because without one, he can’t honestly rebut the criticisms about what it contains. Nor address their criticism.
Buckeyenutlover, thanks for the laugh. In all your comments to this blog, you do exactly what you accuse me of doing in the post, bitch and moan and insult.
Do you even understand the point of the post?
(Finally, Tano, this time, I’m actually grateful for you comment and I say this with sincerity. I wrote the post in the dead of night so we could have fresh content on the blog at mid-day (as I wanted to focus on my dissertation and other non-blog projects in the morning). I didn’t full “hash” out my idea. Responding to your comment allowed me to do that, so thanks for the opportunity. One time when the comment section of this blog does serve the purpose I wish it would–for serious discussion of controversial issues.)
It would be nice to know what it’s the bill because without one, he can’t honestly rebut the criticisms about what it contains. Nor address their criticism.
Bingo.
In short, Obama made guarantees without having a bill. Those would be known as “lies”.
It would be nice to know what it’s the bill because without one, he can’t honestly rebut the criticisms about what it contains. Nor address their criticism.
Bingo.
In short, Obama made statements about what was in the bill without having a bill. Those would be known as “lies”.
#1: “Given that it is Constitution day, why not contemplate the President’s profound respect for the legislative process, and his desire to have all voices, including those few Republicans who might approach this issue with good faith, have a chance to have their concerns heard, and to contribute to the final process.”
Wow. Tano, even for you, this is a spectacular lollapalooza of vomit-inducing, Orwellian GARBAGE. Bertha Lewis just called. It seems ACORN would like you to head up their public relations department.
I am still hoping the the rightward parts of our political spectrum will stop thier over-the-top fear mongering
You mean like “We must pass the bill NOW or people will die!!!”? Nevermind that it won’t go into effect for another four years. Or that insurance companies, doctors, nurses etc. are all in business to kill people for profit? Or the suggestion insurance companies drop all of their customers?
THAT kind of fear mongering???
Guiding Principles – This sounds so intellectual and philosophical… and so White!!! Politicians always have some Plan – but its always a secret that no one can articulate or explain – because its so new that no one will understand it. They always wait for its unveiling so that the masses can have the time to “catch up” because of it will have such an enormous impact on life as we know it. In the end fails to live up to the Press it receives. Net spending cut…NOT. Open and Honest Congress…NOT. Middle Class Tax cut…NOT. Transparency…NOT. How do propose that we take the President’s Message on health reform, Tano and Company??? Based on the history of actually following through on promises, what do you expect?
Let us not forget that the President not only references this as-yet-non-existent bill at every turn, but if he had had his way, debate would have ended in June.
I’m slowly starting to think that the WH wants this to go down in flames. Consider: they can blame the conservative Republicans (all six of them) in the next election cycle without having to roll back the sheet on this D.O.A. montrosity.
Otherwise, it doesn’t make any sense.
Best wishes,
-MFS
#10: “Politicians always have some Plan – but its always a secret that no one can articulate or explain – because its so new that no one will understand it.”
Duffy that applies not only to the substance of what they are trying to enact but also the procedures they use. For example, I’m completely baffled as to why 3 o’clock in the morning suddenly seems to be the most productive time of “day” for this Congress. Does anyone know what that’s about? Very puzzling. I guess I’m just too dumb to figure out the nebulous complexities of the daily schedule of an important woman like Nancy Pelosi. Of course, if I were Tano, I would just assume that those Democrats are working those crazy dead-of-night hours because of the “profound respect they have for the legislative process.” The only question I have is: how? HOW does Barney Frank CARE so much about us that he works those insane, thankless hours?! It’s truly inspiring.
Thanks for you response Dan, sorry I couldn’t get back to you sooner.
I remain at a loss to find the sense in your argument. I cannot imagine what could be worthy of criticism in a president identifying a problem that needs to be solved, expressing his determination to lead the political branches in crafting a solution, and laying out the principles that he deems to be essential parts of that solution. And calling on the Congress to do its job in crafting all the details. And inspiring and prodding the process to move along whenever it gets bogged down. That to me seems like a very fine model for how a president and a legislature should share the burdens of governance.
I am not assuming that you favor the president slapping down a completed bill on the Congresses doorstep with a take-it-or-leave it attitude. I recognize that you see the importance of Congresses input. BUt it seems to be a very limited input.
Look, if the President sends to the Congress a bill, ala Bill and Hillary’s attempt at health care, then what does that represent. Hillary put together her own panel of experts. She took this on the road to get input from around the country. Then they went off a drafted a bill. But this is precisely the role of the Congress. They are the ones whose job it is to craft legislation, to have experts amongst them, and to consult other experts who testify before them. They are the ones who must keep in touch with the people, if they wish to keep their jobs. And they are the ones who, within the institution as a whole, have a lot of memory of all the pitfalls and unintended consequences that may arise from various provisions.
I really disagree with what you seem to think was the Reagan model of governance. Ironically, Obama gets some criticism from the left because many people feel that his leadership style is very similar to Reagan’s. I certainly was very alive and conscious, and suffering, throughout the Reagan administration, and I can assure you that the impression that most people had was that Reagan outsourced a hell of a lot to Congress.
Finally, I am really puzzled by your choice of words by which to conceptualize your critique. “Presumptious”??? How does that fit in to your argument? We tend to use that term for someone who is arrogant, overweening, overstepping his bounds. Seems to me that you are actually accusing him of the opposite – of outsourcing too much of his own responsibilities to the Congress – being too deferential to them. How does this equate to presumptiousness?
I cannot imagine what could be worthy of criticism
That’s the problem. We’re dealing with a shill named Tano who simply cannot imagine anything that Barack Obama does to be worthy of criticism.
The pathology of the Tanos of this world is simply fascinating. These people have so brainwashed themselves into believing that all criticism of black people is racist that they create a reality in which black people are perfect in order to avoid having to criticize them.