What the President’s Delayed Trip Means

Chernenko’s wearing a gray hat with a black band at the May Day parade. What does is all mean? Sign of strength? Or one foot in the grave?

To me, it looks like he is upping the ante.

With those many, sometimes, very interesting game theories, the theoretician who entered the conversation said that this was a game of chicken.

Obama has his foot on the accelerator and isn’t flinching.

Cookie,
.
With the Russian leadership, the answer was always “one foot in the grave”. That was one of the requirements for being elected to the post.
.
I seem to remember that, at one point, so many died over a short time that they forbade radio stations from playing certain classical music pieces in a minor key, because they were afraid that the populace would think that another member of the Politburo had passed on.

Kate, I have appreciated your posts and the amount of work you have done on the ins and outs of health care, but have you been drinking too much pundit water? Two snarky comments about the President in a very short time. Really necessary? There is a definite place for snark, but to me these spots weren’t it.

But I give Fox News credit for not letting Obama turn the interview into an infomercial for Democratic health care reform. Aren’t we all a little tired of those?

and

But still, I’m reminded of how Obama suffered a personal humiliation when he opted – late in the game – to personally campaign for Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. We know how that turned out.

The second one in particular seems a bit strained, after all this post has nothing to do with campaigning for Coakley or anyone else for that matter. One visit – no matter what time in the campaign – doesn’t break his reputation.

Perhaps it’s too much Hill and Politico.

?

Agreed -snarky and oddly written
.
“a personal humiliation when he opted – late in the game – to personally campaign for Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race.”
.
Was he there in person?
.
On the substance-Politico and Kate reading Tea Leaves is beyond worthless.

In case of Olympic bid and Martha Cockley’s campaign, he is dealing with external factors beyond his control. Here, he is dealing with fellow democrats whose response (yeah or nay) is mostly definitive. I think as Larson said earlier they have already reached the number 216, but are not boasting about it as a measure of precaution. Without such a confidence, they would have never suspended bargaining with Stupak. All this suggests me that the postponement of the trip is a measure of his confidence.

What the President’s Delayed Trip Means

So, what does it mean? Glorious victory or humiliation in defeat? As an attempt at analysis, it’s not very enlightening, Kate.

Besides that, I’d like to second Ivy at #3. Those items feel like kind of a stretch in order to be fair and balanced.

It means OBAMA is pissed.. he’s failed.. he’s had to face the fact that the people really mean NO.. and we are just getting warmed up..

@afguy Yes, incapacitated and drooling was familiar ground after Brezhnev.

“Obama has his foot on the accelerator and isn’t blinking” Great, just what the American Public needs, a still wet behind the ears President, playing “chicken” with the American public. They have already told him they do not want this bill, but who cares what we think? You are going to get it even if it DOES major damage to our health care delivery system! How many sweetheart deals in this package, Mr. President? We don’t know because he wont tell us, along with many other surprises to be unveiled only AFTER it passes. One other pertinent fact: If the bill is so good for the American public,then why is the President and Congress, exempting THEMSELVES from this tangled web of chicanery?

Ugh… What choice did he have but to campaign for the horrid Coakley campaign? What’s significant is that Obama seems to have found his focus since the loss in MA. If the Dems are successful in passing HCR it will become apparent that losing the dysfunctional majority was the best thing that could’ve happened to them. Maybe they won’t let the next piece of legislation get so diluted before they go to reconciliation. Oh wait, there I go being optimistic again.

Earl,

You’re a guy who does his homework.
After reading as much as you can tolerate of the nine hundred and two pages, we can discuss on that post specifically what is wrong (other than you desire for tort reform, which just can’t fit in there this time).

Everybody knows that there is a huge amount of misinformation and if I believed that there would be death panels, as some people do, I would oppose it to.

I doubt I will be done with just skimming as much as I can tolerate until Sunday.

Bet you $100,000 there aren’t any death panels nor counseling people to ask them if they want to die.

(Yes, I am that confident on that – even though such a wager would be against upcoming earnings, not savings).

I’d like to see some informed criticism and our regular neocon crowd just isn’t capable of such.

Icky,

You are saying that Obama is pissed off and, in response to being pissed off he is staying in America to personally upset you?

It does help to make some sense sometimes. It would add something to your credibility. I mean, if you made sense you might have some credibility.

Not to mention, Pelosi and Emanuel are far more aware of the situation, are far more experienced and know what to do and not to do so they wouldn’t expect Obama to stick around unless there is an actual, trackable, political upside.

The pundit imaginarium at work. Let’s guess motives. Let’s make comparisons that have no relevance.
One of the funniest memes coming from Howie Kurtz and others is the vision that he and others are having that Obama is not happy being President. Somehow they can divine this from body language. Their advice:
“come on get happy” and “and all your cares will go away”. How did the country run before the wise pundits became so important to our political well being?

If Obama will be humiliated if the bill fails, will he also be responsible for sealing the democrats fate in November? Is this a lose/lose situation for him? Or will this be a stunning victory for Obama and will he get credit if the democrats don’t suffer massive losses this fall?

Will this be a stunning loss for the republicans if the bill passes? Will it mean that the Tea Party isn’t sweeping the country and they’re marginalized?

On the other hand, maybe passage of the bill means that the bill passes.

Barack Obama owes Andy Stern and the SEIU his best efforts to get this passed — they spent $150 million to elect Obama and other Democrats, and want to see some return on their investment.

If this was about what is best for his presidency, or what is best for the Democratic Party, then we would not be having this discussion. The Congress would be trying to work on economic issues, not on forcing through legislation which barely passed the first time and has lost support relentlessly since last summer.

P R E S I D E N T I A L C A N D I D A T E
Barack Obama (D)

Individual contributions $656,357,572 88%
legend PAC contributions $1,830 0%
legend Candidate self-financing $0 0%
legend Federal Funds $0 0%
legend Other $88,626,223 12%

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

It would appear that Obama’s own campaign did not receive any significant amount of money from PACs and Obama’s primary motivation is that he believes that this a good bill.

Patrick, your tally does not include independent expenditures, either by labor unions or George Soros and his pals.

Please send a source that does include such information.

You know that there is no accurate measure of how much was spent. Even the best guess could be off by $100 million or maybe far more. When billionaires like Soros and Burkle start to spend on something they really want, they usually don’t stop until they get it.

My point is that more than half the members of Stern’s union work in health care, and these number would be expected to grow significantly if the federal government spends even greater amounts each year. He is after power, he knows how to get it, and he is unwilling to let a handful of fiscally-responsible Democrats in the Congress stand in his way.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

Unless there was illegal activity, Soros and the SEIU would be limited to $2,400 each.

If you say that he is supporting this for the poor, union members or for the votes for the poor or union members because he believes they will love the result, that would be a reasonable statement.

if labour unions raise money for Obama, they then become an incarnation of Nazi Gestapo/Communist Red army??
.
What happens when the Chamber of commerce does the same for Repugs?? They become champions of the American way of life.
.
Hope you can see the irony there.

Maverick: my point is that this unpopular legislation, which may cost the Democrats control of at least one house of Congress this year, would not be on the agenda if it was not the top priority of the Service Employees International Union.

When Philanthropist, progressive and atheist George Soros supports a candidate, it is something which scares Republicans.

When Eric Prince of XE – aka Blackwater – a Christian Right fundamentalist and owner of a private army supports a candidate, then Republicans are unworried.

Interesting priorities when, unlike Prince, Soros has nothing to gain except that he, apparently, likes this kind of health care reform.

Right, the only reason Democrats have been pushing healthcare reform for over a year is because SEIU wants it. Like it hasn’t been at the top of the Democrats’ agenda for 60 years or more.

Obama keeps saying this, too. But the fact remains that this particular bill, or something like it, has been bleeding support since it was first brought up in the House. This is bipartisan support for some kind of legislation, but not this particular monstrosity.

So one must ask, why is it so crucial that THIS bill must be passed, even if dozens of Democratic congressmen lose their bid for reelection as a result? If the public does not want this bill, who is it that insists on this bill? ANS: those who paid for THIS bill, not for some lame bipartisan effort which fails to enhance the power of labor bosses like Andy Stern.

jbaustian

“Labor bosses”
When I think of “Labor Bosses” in America I think of waiting for the next new episode of “I love Lucy”.

Businesses have dominated over labor since the 1970s and were at their all time peak for percentage of the workforce in the 1950s.

Besides, you might have noticed that the “Cadillac tax” would hurt the health insurance of union members first.

Clearly, if you agree with his conclusion or not (obviously not) Obama believe that this is the right thing to do and, hopefully, when the right wing spin machine stops spinning it, it will become obvious that this is an acceptable start for health care reform.

If we could ever hear any reasonable Republican (if that is not an oxymoron – at least among the huge majority who post here) what fixes should be made so that it will not be a “monstrosity” it would, actually, be a productive dialog here.

Both reasonable and unreasonable Republicans are united in opposition to this bill. The CBO may say it will save money, but the CBO can only assume that Democrats will keep their promise to cut $500 billion from Medicare, etc., and no one believes that will happen.

The only entitlement that ever cost approximately what the sponsors said it would cost was the prescription drug bill. No bill that promises to pay for the insurance of 30+ million additional Americans, can believably promise to save the government money. And with the federal government already running annual deficits of $1.5 trillion, this hardly seems like the time for another huge spending program that can never be cut no matter how bad the budget situation deteriorates.

So, your concerns are:
The CBO may be too optimistic.

The Democrats may not make the cut and, if they do not, health care reform would cost up to $500 billion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but, I believe these numbers were for over a ten year period.

Hence, $50 B/ 300 Mil Americans would equal $667 per year.

That sounds like a very reasonable thing to be concerned about.

The bill is available here online, so, if you skim through it, you can bring up more objections or, possibly, discover you might be mistaken.

This is a reasonable discussion J.

Thank you.

or else he’s driving a toyota.

I guess I MUST be trying to boil this donnybrook down to something far too boring because I just found out somebody made a really dumb mistake with math and nobody corrected him.

I MADE THE DUMB MISTAKE.

In a worst case scenario, it would be $166.67 more in taxes for every man, woman and child in the United States every year.

50 billion is a five with ten zeros.
Our population is about 300 million, which is a three with eight zeros.

So, my math problem would be 5 with two zeros divided by three or 500 divided by three.

That would $166,67.

Hey, just because I sound like a bright guy doesn’t mean that nobody should tell me when I screw up on math.

So, we are talking about taxpayers potentially paying more for this system.