Politicians as (C-SPAN) Reality Stars

Talking Points Memo, a progressive outlet, is taking quite a bit of joy in House Minority Leader John Boehner wondering if President Obama’s upcoming health care summit will be simply a “political event.” Under the headline, “Boehner: How Dare Obama Televise The Health Care Debate After I Demanded He Televise The Health Care Debate!” TPM posted video of an interview Boehner recently gave to Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. In the interview, Boehner said, “I don’t want to walk into some trap. I don’t want to walk into some political event. I want to walk in and have a real conversation about what we can do to make our current system work better.” Boehner also asked a question we’ve all been asking since Obama announced the summit, “Is this a political event or is this going to be a real conversation?”

Well, herein lies the problem with television cameras – they have a tendency to change real conversations into political events. This was obvious during the C-SPAN-broadcast Senate floor debate of the health care bill when Republicans and Democrats gave speech after speech and offered amendment after amendment – almost none of which was intended to have any effect whatsoever on the final legislation. (I wrote a little about this back when it was happening.)

Obama erred when he promised on the campaign trail to put all health care negotiations on C-SPAN. (Thousands of hours of Congressional testimony and committee debate were broadcast, but some early deals with special interest groups and late key deals among Democrats happened behind closed doors.) Obama’s promise was one he never could have kept and either betrayed a certain naivete or was an effort to score campaign points at the expense of honesty. (Here’s Ezra Klein on the pitfalls of negotiating before the cameras.) This bad promise also opened Obama up to criticism from Republicans who have been hammering him on “backroom deals” and a lack of transparency. Republicans have every right to make these criticisms, but then it’s hard for them to claim that the presence of television cameras at the Feb. 25 health care summit will turn it into theater instead of substance.

Republicans would probably argue that they think the summit will be theater not because it’ll be televised, but because Obama refuses to scrap the Democratic health care bills and start over. But Congressional Republicans just met with Obama behind closed doors to talk about health care, among other topics, and there was no protest about the meeting from Boehner or anyone else. Judge for yourself. Here’s another exchange between Boehner and Van Suteren. (Full transcript here.)

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you make of the fact that it’s televised? The American people are probably delighted that we’re getting this televised.
BOEHNER: I think that’s fine, but you know, is this a political event or is this going to be a real conversation?
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, except that we’ve been hammering them about the transparency.
BOEHNER: I don’t…
VAN SUSTEREN: The president said, you know, he was going to put everything on C-Span, so we can’t criticize him now for when he finally does put it on C-Span.
BOEHNER: Well, that’s fine, but I want to make sure that we’re going to have an honest conversation, you know, an honest, bipartisan conversation about how we can approach this. I don’t want to walk into some set-up. I don’t know who’s going to be there. I don’t know how big the room’s going to be. I don’t know — what the set-up is going to be….

I stand by what I said earlier about the Feb. 25 summit. It will be political theater. There will be posturing and hyperbole and oversimplification meant to obscure the true complexity of the U.S. health care system and how to fix it. But I don’t think I’m alone in hoping there will also be flashes of honest, straightforward substance. What would be even better? If we saw certain policies definitively refuted and others agreed upon. Despite the venomous political climate and seemingly intractable differences between what Republicans and Democrats want for health care reform, there are truths about the system’s dysfunction and how certain policies will affect it. I hope at least some of these will be clearly evident on Feb. 25.

But still, someone will probably come up with a drinking game before the summit that involves taking a shot every time someone says “government takeover” or “Republican obstructionism.”

Related Topics: Barack Obama, bipartisan, c-span, greta van susteren, health care summit, talking points memo, tpm, Congress, Democratic Party, Health Care, Republican Party, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • textee

    Has Obama considered having those U.S. Navy “corpse-men” he talks about provide health care to the uninsured?

  • deconstructiva

    Kate, thanks for this. I’ll take my chance with live TV that something constructive will happen. But seriously, do drinking games while liveblogging the summit here with your colleagues. However, make it a double shot: drink one shot of vodka for every D’s “obstruction” R point and one shot of bourbon for every R’s “govt. takeover” D point. I’m serious. If you, KT, Amy, and Jay did this liveblog, who would win the drinking game when it’s done?

  • queencersei

    Boehner: “I am going to cry and complain about the President not doing something”. Then when he does what I said I wanted him to do “I’m going to cry and complain about how sneaky he is”.
    This is the problem with making grand pronouncements about the opposition. When they turn around and do what you publically said you wanted them to do and you still aren’t happy, at some point you just start to look irrational.

    Also, loved the Greta’s use of the word ‘we’ in her comments.

  • deconstructiva

    …or the four of you can do wine: red for R’s, white for D’s, and rose (the real kind, not watered down white zinfandel) for Sanders and Lieberman. One glass for each comment. Would that work better for you, Kate?

  • dwilde1

    Kate, you state the issues succinctly. The unfortunate fact of this televised summit is that it’s going to be an airtime sound-bite food fight, because all the Democrats care about is getting their spin telecast, and all the Republicans care about is getting theirs on air.

    “… there are truths about the system’s dysfunction…” Yes, but in whose eyes? A perfect example is today’s CNN article about the ‘perverse incentive’ built into health care:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/10/health.care.costs/index.html

    One doctor stands up and cries foul, but all his compatriots and the hospital deny it like a stone wall. In their eyes, they are not getting enough from each test, so bring on the tests, needed or not.

    One of my two favorite articles in this debate (the other was John Mackey’s) was http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

    … with its fabulous metaphor that compares health insurance payments for routine services to buying gas with car insurance.

    Unfortunately, one truth that won’t get aired in honest (?) debate is the dirty little secret that there are a lot of campaign contributions coming from people who profit from the system as it exists in all its bloated glory.

    November 2nd is already the only thing on the pols minds.

    There is only one solution for this crisis, and it’s a simple three-step process that everyone can follow.

    1) Say no to excess treatments, follow-ups and drugs
    2) Be responsible for yourself
    3) Switch to catastrophic insurance and health savings accounts

    … oh, and:

    4) vote for third party candidates wherever possible.

    That’s the only way we will restore sanity to health care. It’s polite to say you have hope for the summit, but I doubt you are that naive. :)

  • kevin

    Also, loved the Greta’s use of the word ‘we’ in her comments.
    .
    Seriously, how weird is that? I thought Fox went to greater lengths to pretend they weren’t the propaganda arm of the Republican Party?

  • freeinpa

    Obama leads 44 percent to 42 percent, a statistical dead heat, against a nameless Republican, according to the survey of 1,025 adults nationwide

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32837.html#ixzz0fGMG2tMG
    ==

    Why would anyone think Obama would stage a poltical event?

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    If Obama lets the Democrats and Republicans take it to theater, than smacks it back to substance ala: GOP caucus meeting, I think he wins big. He makes Congress look like a bunch of partisan hacks who tried to turn it into theater and like he’s the only one in Washington who wants to get things done. If he can’t smack it back, he gets to be part of the problem. The Democrats get bonus points if they (yeah, right) can keep most of their key members from dissolving into theater and using them to assist Obama in smacking it back to substance – then the Democrats in general look like they’re working on it and the Republicans look like Partisan hacks. The worst scenario is if the Republicans spend their time bring up their favorite amendments and the Democrats – especially Democrat backbenchers who might be harder to control – start posturing.
    .
    There’s a 2D posturing for this summit – the first dimension is on actual Health Care reform but the second is on substantive vs for show. Democrats have to do better on the second dimension or they lose.
    .
    Mind you, all of this assumes that there won’t actually be any substance, but I think everyone on this blog knows that’s a foregone conclusion

  • Paul-no not that one

    It’s not about republicans demanding it to be televised and then changing their minds.

    It just makes an easier story for our sad media to tell.

    The “give me give me give me” republicans got concessions in the stimulus bill…and voted against it.

    The same thing with the Senate HCR bill.

    This is just an easier to tell version of the same Lucy Holding the Football for Charlie Brown story.

  • charlieromeobravo

    “When they turn around and do what you publically said you wanted them to do and you still aren’t happy, at some point you just start to look irrational.”

    Heh. To those of us that have been paying attention they passed that point some time back :-)
    .
    Seriously though, if Boehner is going to ask for a televised negotiation and then start adding requirements after the President agrees and sets it up, he goes a long way to proving the accusation that the Republicans haven’t been good faith partners in health care reform. I’m glad to see Obama start to call their bluffs, stand in front of them and refute their misinformation about the health care bill, and stand in front of a camera for all of America to see him say “Please join us, I want to hear what you have to say and I’ll accept any idea that furthers our goals and checks out against reality.” His presence and more daylight help keep everyone more honest.

  • nflfoghorn

    That’s fair and balanced for ya.

  • dollared

    What on earth is your point, Kate? They are p-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n-s.

    We elected them as politicians, to make policy for our polities. Of course this is a political event. Are you saying that nothing can get done except behind closed doors? Are you saying that what goes on behind closed doors, in a room full of politicians making policy, is not politics?

    It seems to me that once again, the Republican relationship managers have gotten to you, to spin the event for them. Or else you never took Poli Sci 101. Or both.

    The event is political theater, for the benefit of an audience. All of us. It is one of the very, very few times that the Republicans will be forced to defend their rhetoric and their intransigence, and their kooky ideas about eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Or they can defend attacking the Senate and House Bills for cutting Medicare, while at the same time defending Paul Ryan’s proposal to eliminate Medicare.

    Either way, the point is the actually expose them in front of the President and have him point out that the proposed bills are about all we can do to save the country from health care bankruptcy – unless we get smart and go single payer.

    If you in the media had done your job, and pointed out the lying, cynical, obstructionist, bought-and-paid-for tactics of the Republicans, rather than trying to hype them to boost your click-throughs, we’d have passed this thing by now, and be on to solving other problems.

    But still, you want to somehow dismiss this last chance to get the truth out. Because the truth is, well, not important, I guess.

  • kevin

    For a group that insists they hate the “party of no” label, Republicans refuse to take “yes” for an answer.

  • kbanginmotown

    [This] opened Obama up to criticism from Republicans who have been hammering him on “backroom deals” and a lack of transparency. Republicans have every right to make these criticisms, but then it’s hard for them to claim that the presence of television cameras at the Feb. 25 health care summit will turn it into theater instead of substance.

    Just…hard?
    .
    Perhaps: disingenuous? dishonest? hypocritical?
    .
    I’m sure you can do better than “hard”, Kate.

  • allthingsinaname

    Who cars? I want to see it. Theater? Hell what do we have now? Now every thing is predictable. No, unless it is a tax cut for the wealthy.

  • bcinaz

    “Is this a political event or is this going to be a real conversation?”

    This would be the question I ask myself everytime I hear my own Senators Kyl and McCain throwing hissy fits in public, which seems to be the only way they know how to make a point these days.

    Flip…flop…Hissy.Fit.

blog comments powered by Disqus