Did the President of the United States really just convene a joint session of Congress to announce that the time for bickering is over, that the healthcare issue is very, very important, that we need to take Real Action, that tort reform is (maybe) on the table (once Kathleen Sebelius looks into it), and that an individual mandate (hello, Mitt Romney!) is a must? Was that the big speech? Am I missing something?
Sadly, I don’t think so. That was amateur hour, plain and simple. Presidents just don’t use their ability to address a joint session of Congress simply to make a political stump speech — it’s utterly unprecedented. And let’s be very clear: a stump speech is exactly what that was. That he needed to do that, of course, is confirmation of the position of weakness he finds himself in. He was doing what he always has done when he finds himself in a tough spot: he made a speech. The mission last night was to keep healthcare from becoming, well, his Waterloo.
And yet, it wasn’t even good: there was nothing groundbreaking proposed in his speech. He refused to commit either way on the government “option,” and I envision not one Congressman changing his mind either way on the still-non-existent proposal. Worse still, he used the speech for exactly the same purposes he condemned the right for employing — to bicker (you guys expanded the deficit, too, you know!), scare (people will die if I don’t get my way), and divide (don’t waste my time if you’re against this idea). To the discerning listener, portions of the speech were downright shrill at times. Unfortunately for Obama, we’re not in campaign mode anymore. Comforting platitudes and vaguely bipartisan overtones cannot win the day, because vagueness cannot be written into a bill.
The emptiness of the speech, as Obama might like to put it, was not about left or right. As a citizen, I found the speech to be completely pointless. This sort of vapidity is all-too-typical of the president, and it’s getting really old, really fast.
Citizens and commentators should send Obama a clear message tomorrow: go back to your office and come up with something substantive or stop wasting our time.
11 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Sep 10, 2009 at 10:23 am
The basic partisan issue here seems to be as to whether something needs to be done about healthcare by the Federal Government – or whether America will be best off if during this Congress, with this President, no healthcare reform is passed.
And the Republicans need to be careful, because this issue could split their own party. Party pundits and political leaders seem to be throwing their hats in on the nothing is best position. But there are a lot of Republican voters – particularly in the small business community – who see a strong need for more federal involvement.
From one analysis of overnight polling following the speech:
Traditionally, voters from the opposite party of the president tend to score consistently low and to create huge partisan divides in these dial tests. That was not the case with Obama’s speech. With just a few exceptions, Republicans held solidly around 50 and even exceeded 70 percent favorability during parts of the president’s speech, giving particularly high scores to Obama’s remarks on not adding a penny to the deficit, creating a health care exchange, protecting Medicare, and reforming medical malpractice.
You see – if you’re not dead set against Obama passing anything, the pledge to budgetary discipline, and the nods to healthcare exchanges, protecting Medicare, and tort reform, all seem like Obama is being bipartisan. With Baucus moving a bill out of commerce, the time for the Charlie Brown-Lucy routine that’s been played to try to keep Obama looking ineffective the last 4 months on the issue might end. If the Republicans don’t start climbing aboard and taking credit for some of the ideas mentioned above, but just attacking everything Obama does as partisan, they risk being totally shut out of any goodwill that might flow from passage and implementation of a final reform bill.
2 Kanzeon // Sep 10, 2009 at 11:09 am
That’s your critique? Really, that’s IT?
What, exactly, were you expecting in a speech on healthcare? I think a reasonable person would expect to hear an outline of proposals. Isn’t that what it was? Are there any groundbreaking ideas left in this old topic? The audience WASN’T the Congress, but the television viewers (as is usual in these speeches, including the State of the Union). The goal was to close the polling gap – specifically, when people are asked if they support the Democratic/Obama plan, they say no, but when the plan is described, they say yes. It wasn’t the change the minds in Congress (do you remember, ever, Harry Reid or Newt Gingrich saying “before his speech, I thought the President’s proposals were nutty, but he really changed my mind tonight?”) Public pressure changes the minds of Congress, not Presidential oratory.
Five seconds on the internet confirms that you are probably just wrong about this being unprecedented. George HW Bush had a speech before a joint session on the budget, as did Bill Clinton.
“Empty” is a critique of a speech that focuses only on tone. “Empty” are the complaints against this President, not for what he says, but for the fact that he speaks at all (how dare the President speak to schoolchildren or a joint session of Congress!)
3 sinz54 // Sep 10, 2009 at 11:19 am
Kanzeon: The purpose of the speech was to reassure Americans that health care reform is a good thing and not going to hurt those who are already insured.
Unfortunately, the President has NO POWER to enforce those promises–except the threat of a Presidential veto, something Obama won’t carry out because he’s desperate to get any kind of health care reform. If Obama doesn’t veto, then it’s still all up to the Congress. They’re not bound by anything Obama said.
We’re past the point of proposals. We’ve got H.R. 3200 in the House, we’ve got Baucus’s proposal in the Senate Finance Committee. Those are the real bills. Obama didn’t say anything about whether either of those he finds acceptable. So basically, Obama once again left the whole thing in the hands of Congress.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who don’t understand how all this works, and they’ll believe Obama’s empty promises.
4 What He Said, What They Heard - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com // Sep 10, 2009 at 11:44 am
[...] Knepper at New Majority: Did the President of the United States really just convene a joint session of Congress to [...]
5 What He Said, What They Heard - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com // Sep 10, 2009 at 11:44 am
[...] Knepper at New Majority: Did the President of the United States really just convene a joint session of Congress to [...]
6 Kanzeon // Sep 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm
sinz54:
Obama has the power to “enforce” his promises, just as every other president has power to “enforce” promises. All presidents make promises as to legislation – it isn’t a useless act. In fact, no bill is ever going to arrive on his desk that isn’t along the broad outlines of his speech. The party leadership is committed to doing what it takes to make sure the bill at least can be argued to be deficit-neutral, and will contain language excluding illegal immigrants and abortion, and every other major bullet-point of Obama’s speech. If Pelosi weren’t 100% behind what he said, he wouldn’t have said it. There are some contentious issues, such as the public option, but he didn’t make that a deal breaker.
Obama wasn’t speaking for himself, but for the Democratic leadership. That’s how it works, and always has, in both parties. Nothing “empty” about it.
7 rbottoms // Sep 10, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Sorry, but thanks for playing.
8 EscapeVelocity // Sep 10, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Good on Wilson for calling Obama a liar, just after Obama got through calling Repubicans and others liars.
What a leader Obama is, heh?
LOL!
9 AlexK // Sep 10, 2009 at 5:14 pm
rbottoms: You mean that poll that sampled Democrats over Republicans by a nearly 3:1 margin?
10 balconesfault // Sep 11, 2009 at 8:30 am
AlexK – given that Dems have majorities in both chambers, a poll that increased support for Obama’s plan by 14 points even predominantly among Dems would be significant. The more Democratic Congressmen feel their constituency is supportive of reform, the more they know they can back Obama on this. Predominantly Republican districts could be 100% against reform and it won’t affect the calculus, since Republicans (with prehaps the exception of Olympia Snow) have made themselves irrelevant to any reform discussion.
11 fert // Sep 14, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I’m sure this review will be linked quite a bit for the soundbites it affords; kinda like how ‘Romantic Times’ magazine gets quoted on the back of romance novels. ‘Trite’ would be a decent descriptor for both.
sinz: The president has no power to enforce and yet your tone suggests that he should because leaving it up to Congress is bad. Could you elaborate as to who should be making these reforms? I’m not trying to be snarky or anything I just want your take on governmental balance of power.
You must log in to post a comment.