Obama in the Briefing Room

“Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in …”

As far as I can tell, the giveaway usually happens at the beginning amongst Democrats.

Bipartisanship … blah, blah, blah. Lotsa talk.

Is Obama appearing in the White House Press Room anything like Moses when he came down from the Mountain?
.
Who gives a rat’s silly a$$?? Please explain.
.

“The president made a surprise visit to the daily press briefing Tuesday, only the third time he has made such an appearance to date. He reported back on today’s talks with congressional leaders from both parties, and took wide-ranging questions from the press.”

.
Did you get giddy Adam? Or, did you get that little “tingle” up your leg? Come on now, tell us!

I hope Obama didn’t write notes on his palm.

The President’s remarks at the impromptu presser, when heard in the context of his Q&A at the Republican conference, seem to beg a number of questions:

“Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in,” Obama said.

Which “Democrats”?
.
To which “Democrats” is the President referring? New Democrats or liberal Democrats? Blanche Lincoln or Ron Wyden? Ben Nelson or Bernie Sanders?
.
When the President refers to policy “they believe in”, what does he mean?
.
What exactly do “they,” the “Democrats,” believe in?
.
Of those who are fortunate or diligent enough to be aware of its contents, who “believes in” what’s in the Senate bill…besides AHIP, PhRMA, the AMA and the beneficiaries of industry electioneering largess, I mean?
.
When Obama stood in front of Republicans and said:

…at its core, if you look at the basic proposal that we’ve put forward: it has an exchange so that businesses and the self-employed can buy into a pool and can get bargaining power the same way big companies do; the insurance reforms that I’ve already discussed, making sure that there’s choice and competition for those who don’t have health insurance. The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.
.
Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker, and, certainly you don’t agree with Tom Daschle on much, but that’s not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that’s how you guys — (applause) — that’s how you guys presented it.
.
And so I’m thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist — no, look, I mean, I’m just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans — is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care

So…
.
Why would conceding even further changes to this legislation mean that “Democrats give up everything that they believe in,” when the President himself describes the bill as “actually what many Republicans” proposed doing about the health care crisis in America?
.
Do the Democrats “believe” in Republican health care solutions from fifteen years ago? Is that true?
.
Do the Democrats “believe” in what Bob Dole, Howard Baker and Tom Daschle conceive of as solutions to an unsustainable American health care system’s fundamental problems?
.
With what group of Democrats is President Obama expressing such solidarity? Is it the little gang of Democrats in the Senate who were threatening to join a Republican filibuster ever since the bill got out of committee? Is it the bloc of Democrats who are threatening to vote against their own bill, if it’s passed with the House’s “fixes” through reconciliation?
.
Does anybody know to which “Democrats” the President is referring when he tells Republicans that they will only give up some of what they “believe in” –just not “everything”?

Just because I know you want to be accurate, I point out that Bernie isn’t a Democrat, even though he caucuses with them. He really isn’t a Democrat, and never has been.

Stuart – don’t you think the President simply means that the Republicans have made it clear that anything the Democrats want they will defeat?

I think on the one hand Obama probably would endorse a bill that (allowed the Republicans to save face?) and included a number of Republican plans, and allowed them to say they had gotten a good deal from the President, and they could vote for it. As Obama pointed out to them when he was invited to talk with them, a good many Republicans have boxed themselves in and made it untenable for them to support a bill.

And on the other hand, if – as expected – the Republicans either don’t bother to come to the table at all or continue to insist it all has to be done their way or they won’t play (as in “scrap the current bill or we won’t come”) then Obama will be able to go back and say, “you see how hard I’ve worked to compromise with the Republicans, but they don’t want to work with us. We’re now going to forge a Democratic bill and pass it”)

kathy:
.
Since I know you got what I was trying to say, I’ll happily concede this matter of fact. Of course you’re correct.
.
I did use Bernie for a reason, though, trying to illustrate the fact that there simply aren’t “Democrats,” there are the people who agreed to go along with the Senate bill for whatever reasons, and the people who made the Senate bill what it is. There aren’t “The Democrats,” and we shouldn’t all be blamed for the awful policy and poor politics that is the fruit of Daschle/Dole genius combined with Rahm’s Napoleonic brilliance.
.
Thinking about it, should I have written “Which Democrats? Joe Lieberman or Bernie Sanders?”
.
or
.
“Which Democrats? Ben Nelson or Russ Feingold?“

kathy:

don’t you think the President simply means that the Republicans have made it clear that anything the Democrats want they will defeat?

Yes, of course that’s what he’s trying to get across, I agree entirely.
.
But that’s not what’s so interesting about his stance.
.
What’s incredible is that Obama can go in front of the Republicans and the nation and admit –no, boast that the health care proposals under consideration, ostensibly supported by his Administration are essentially the Republican plans of fifteen years ago, and that these Republican ideas are not radical, i.e. not in the slightest bit liberal.
.
What’s bizarre is that he can do this and still claim that Democrats “believe in” the policies of Bob Dole and Tom Daschle. It’s bizarre only if what’s left unsaid is that a certain bloc of Democrats (especially in the Senate) actually do believe in the Republican plans of fifteen years ago, and the implication that these Democrats, like Evan Bayh, Bill Nelson or Mary Landrieu, for example, somehow represent the views of the Democratic majority.
.
I guess I’m saying that I understand perfectly the theatrical games the President is rather transparently playing with Republicans (and the press corps), but that there’s something even more important being said here.

Actually, his talk illustrates how far to the right the Republicans have moved. Neither Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan would feel welcome in this group. Fortunately for them, the world is a globe or they would have fallen over the edge and been eaten by the sea monsters who abide there.

“Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in,” Obama said. “There’s got to be some give and take.”
.
But this the accurate defenition of bi-partisanship in Washington, D.C. The democrats adopt Republican positions.

He appeared at an event? I thought Oba-Mao was just burned into my TV screen.