Greenwald rips "White House as helpless victim on health care" excuse

[mcablue]

GLENN GREENWALD (12-16-09) (excerpt):

Numerous Obama defenders -- such as Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein and Steve Benen -- have been insisting that there is just nothing the White House could have done and all of this shows that our political system is tragically "ungovernable." After all, Congress is a separate branch of government, Obama doesn't have a vote, and 60 votes are needed to do anything. How is it his fault if centrist Senators won't support what he wants to do? Apparently, this is the type of conversation we're to believe takes place in the Oval Office:

The President: I really want a public option and Medicare buy-in. What can we do to get it?

Rahm Emanuel: Unfortunately, nothing. We can just sit by and hope, but you're not in Congress any more and you don't have a vote. They're a separate branch of government and we have to respect that.

The President: So we have no role to play in what the Democratic Congress does?

Emanuel: No. Members of Congress make up their own minds and there's just nothing we can do to influence or pressure them.

The President: Gosh, that's too bad. Let's just keep our fingers crossed and see what happens then.

In an ideal world, Congress would be -- and should be -- an autonomous branch of government, exercising judgment independent of the White House's influence, but that's not the world we live in. Does anyone actually believe that Rahm Emanuel (who built his career on industry support for the Party and jamming "centrist" bills through Congress with the support of Blue Dogs) and Barack Obama (who attached himself to Joe Lieberman when arriving in the Senate, repeatedly proved himself receptive to "centrist" compromises, had a campaign funded by corporate interests, and is now the leader of a vast funding and political infrastructure) were the helpless victims of those same forces? Engineering these sorts of "centrist," industry-serving compromises has been the modus operandi of both Obama and, especially, Emanuel.

(...) Why haven't they threatened to remove Joe Lieberman's cherished Homeland Security Chairmanship if he's been sabotaging the President's agenda? Why hasn't the President been rhetorically pressuring Senators to support the public option and Medicare buy-in, or taking any of the other steps outlined here by Adam Green? There's no guarantee that it would have worked -- Obama is not omnipotent and he can't always control Congressional outcomes -- but the lack of any such efforts is extremely telling about what the White House really wanted here.

Read entire story here.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. The money quote --

but the lack of any such efforts is extremely telling about what the White House really wanted here.

The truth of the matter is, either Obama failed on behalf of the people who voted for him, or he succeeded on behalf of the people who funded him.

Take your pick.


TG2012

[katandmoon]

2. GG always nails it

[uponit7771]

3. "...but the lack of any such efforts..." You know this is factualy false right? Also, WTF is he...

...SUPPOSED to do punch the centrist in their mouths and threaten to kill their dogs?!

Give me a fuckin break, if you thought Obama was that powerful then we've been living in the Bush error too long

The "outlined here" link doesn't work

[freddie mertz]

5. He could have consistently supported and pushed for a public option, for one

Which he famously did not do.

Obama gave Lieberman the opening he needed.

The president is the true architect of the current debacle.

[BeyondGeography]

7. As if Lieberman needed an opening to be an asshole

Thanks for the laugh.

[Zodiak]

9. He got his opening because the party coddled him

Emmanuel and Obama have their lip marks all over Leiberman's ass, and it cannot be wiped away.

[freddie mertz]

11. Joe was just taking Obama at his word.

The public option is just a "sliver," not important, we can give that one up, etc.

Joe did not torpedo this.

Obama did.

[Zodiak]

8. I am afraid you will not get far with that poster.

That one loves to use the "pony" line on people.

[uponit7771]

15. Don't need pony line when the facts are easily disputable, state facts first and all is well no?

[Zodiak]

48. You sure needed them yesterday, didn't you?

I'm sorry, you are not interested in civil discourse. You broke the rules on purpose yesterday to insult your fellow DUers with something you KNEW to be against the rules. You are a brinksman and simply here to insult others.

Don't like it? I don't give a shit. I'm frankly tired of how many here think the rules are there to be flouted, especially in the service of denigrating progressives and liberals.

[uponit7771]

69. What rules did I break? TIA

[Zodiak]

73. Ah....the "who me?" defense

Try this one:

"That means that people who strongly agree with policy and actions from this administration shouldn't be called kool-aid drinkers, or whatever other insults there are. I've talked about administrative cheerleaders at times, and even that probably crosses the line.

On the other hand, its also not appropriate to shout about "ponies" to people that disagree. Or call them haters, or whatever else. Fair's fair, eh?"

From Skinner

I alerted on your "pony" posts a few times in the last few days, so yeah, I know you broke those rules.

Here are some more of your "pony" moments...at least the ones that are searchable (deleted posts are searchable, but not able to be retrieved)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=60242&mesg_id=60254

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=37574&mesg_id=38500

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=20298&mesg_id=20390

The others were all deleted messages, because, you know, it is against the rules,

So take your "who, me?" defense and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. You are not an intellectually honest poster, you insult people, and you contribute nothing. Chew on that for a while; you've been noticed for the belligerent poster you are. By the way, one of those posts was from yesterday...the other I alerted on was deleted. Mods can't catch every alert.

So care to say "who me?" now?

[freddie mertz]

17. Maybe we should start calling them "Pony People."

Like Frank Zappa's "Po-Jama People," they have some "cozy little footies on their minds" and "make you sleepy with the stuff they might say."

"I wish they'd all go away"....


Po-Jama People

Some people's hot
Some people's cold
Some people's not very
Swift to behold
Some people do it
Some see right through it
Some wear pyjamas
If only they knew it

The pyjama people are boring me to pieces
Feel like I am wasting my time
They all got flannel up 'n down 'em
A little trap-door back aroun' 'em
An' some cozy little footies on their mind

Po-jama people!
Po-jama people, people!
They sure do make you sleepy
With the things they might say
Po-jama people!
Po-jama people, people!
Mother Mary 'n Jozuf, I wish they'd all go away!

Po-jama people!
It's a po-jama people special . . .
Take one home with you, save a dollar today
Po-jama people!
Po-jama people, people!
Wrap 'em up
Roll 'em out
Get 'em out of my way
Hein nya-nya-hein nya-nya-hein nya-nya-hein
HOEY! HOEY! HOEY!
Wrap 'em up
Roll 'em out
Get 'em out of my way
Hein nya-nya-hein nya-nya-hein nya-nya-hein
HOEY! HOEY! HOEY!
Wrap 'em up
Roll 'em out
Get 'em out of my way
Hein nya-nya-hein nya-nya-hein nya-nya-hein
HOEY! HOEY! HOEY!

(Well . . . ) now some people's hot
An' some people's cold
(Well, Lawd . . . ) an' some people's not very
(Very) swift to behold (swifty!)
(I told you) some people do it (do it!)
(Yes, they do!) (No . . . )
Some see right through it
(See right through it!)
An' some wear PO-JAMAS
If only they knew it

The pyjama people are boring me to pieces
They make me feel like I am wasting my time
They all got flannel up 'n down 'em
A little trap-door back aroun' 'em
An' some cozy little footies on their mind

Po-jama people!
Po-jama people, people!
Lawd, they make you sleepy
With the things they might say (hey, yeah-hey . . . )
Po-jama people!
(Well . . . now) Po-jama people, people!
(I said) ARF! ARF! ARF!
I wish they'd all go away!

Po-jama people! (People!) (Oh, yeah)
Po-jama people special . . .
(I said, I said, I said)
Take one home with you, & save a dollar today
Po-jama people!
(It's a) Po-jama people, people! (Special)
Wrap 'em up
An' roll 'em out
Get 'em out of my way
HOEY! HOEY! HOEY!
Wrap 'em up
An' roll 'em out
Get 'em out of my way
HOEY! HOEY! HOEY!
Wrap 'em up
Roll 'em out
Get 'em out of my way
HOEY! HOEY! HOEY!
(YEAH-HA-HA!)


http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/lyrics/One_Size_Fits_All.html#Pojama

[uponit7771]

22. Maybe we should start calling Obama haters "unfacters"....what about "fact haters?"

[freddie mertz]

27. Sadly, the facts are all with us "haters" this time.

Not that I or most of the people upset by this disaster hate the president.

I don't hate him.

I just question his leadership and, lately, his veracity.

Based on facts.

[uponit7771]

30. The OP or the article isn't even tryin to stay close to facts on Obama efforts and then assigns him

...responsibility on things he can't control...

How are facts on with the haters?!

[freddie mertz]

34. He had and has a lot more control than you are willing to grant him.

What Greenwald is pointing out, as are many this morning, is that the president was instrumental, through a combination of public appeasement and inaction behind the scenes, in bringing us to this point.

The only matter for debate is whether he ever intended it go any differently.

Greenwald and Feingold have suggested that this mess was what he wanted all along.

It's an interpretation, based on these mens' reading of patterns in the existing record.

To me, it seems like a plausible explanation of that pattern.

[uponit7771]

37. "Greenwald and Feingold have SUGGESTED"...Again, can we deal with FACTS not conjecture or some one

...pulling shit out of their ass's about what the president did or can do.

The can say Obama is Super Man for all they want that doesn't make it true, ....

Bottom line, no facts = bunch bullshit...

[freddie mertz]

40. It is a plausible explanation. Based on indisputable facts.

You are just as guilty of interpretation as they are. But they seem to have devoted a bit more care to organizing and sourcing their arguments.

[Zodiak]

51. Yeah, this one invests time in making up names to call other DUers.

As demonstrated upthread.

A real mature one this is, that is, if you are in the target demographic for Mr. Rogers and Dora the Explorer.

[uponit7771]

68. How bout a factuable explanation based of indisputable facts, I'm not going to conjecture over facts

[Zodiak]

50. Perhaps we can grow up and stop thinking of new names to call progressives on this board

But I know you won't go there...you seem to have too much fun with it.

That's okay...as long as the rest of DU knows about it. They're getting a good idea if they read this thread, and I am glad to do my part in it.

Or did you think your behavior would go unnoticed?

[glitch]

44. It's the New True Blue Dog and Pony Show! nt

[uponit7771]

14. He did consistantly support and push for the public optioon, next?

[freddie mertz]

41. "Sliver," anyone?

You can't really believe that.

It defies the record, and all logic, to insist on this point.

[Zodiak]

53. I warned you

This poster is not worth talking to.

Anyone who still uses "pony" a day ago is just here to insult progressives, and if sophistry is a way to accomplish it, then by god, he'll use it.

[katandmoon]

12. What HAS Obama done to support even a public option? Made a few speeches that

included references to it.

That's it.

And we know what Obama's lofty, soaring, beautifully delivered speeches are worth.

The paper they're printed on, maybe.

[uponit7771]

16. Tell the American public that no bill gets signed without it, it's been posted it a trillion times..

[Zodiak]

54. And then taken away with the "sliver" speech

And every signal ever since from the WH is that they will sign ANYTHING that comes to their desk.

I'm afraid your talking point is over 6 months old. Try again, and be more intellectually honest next time (which I know you won't be, but it doesn't hurt to ask).

[freddie mertz]

23. We know that NOW. Too late.

"Too late, too late,
For his case it is sealed,
Turn, turn, turn again.
His sentence is passed
And it cannot be repealed,
Turn, turn to the rain
And the wind."

http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/percys-song

At least till 2012.

[jefferson_dem]

59. Nominee Palin thanks you for your wild-eyed cynicism.

n/t

[treestar]

33. OK, so let's hear no more of the "bully pulpit" argument

Since the POTUS speaking about something has no effect. He can say what he wants. Congress is a separate branch. A separate branch. The separation of powers is a wonderful thing. If Obama can't get all he wants, it's worth it since a McCain or Bush can't get all they want either.

[jgraz]

49. Missing the point.

Obama could have used the bully pulpit, or he could have cracked heads behind the scenes. Presidents committed to a policy do both. Obama did neither.

[jefferson_dem]

60. He did both.

He rolled out the bully pulpit on numerous occasions. How do you, or Greenwald for that matter, know he did not crack any heads behind the scenes? That's why they call it "behind the scenes", silly.

Of course, John Edwards would have been much more ... "firm" in his ... resolve.

[jgraz]

62. If he did "crack heads", it was progressive heads

Anyone with half a brain can see Obama was never behind this policy. It was fake, corporate-friendly non-reform from the beginning.

[jefferson_dem]

64. Oh. Well, that settles it then.

Thanks for clarifying.

[jgraz]

65. Oh, I doubt that.

You haven't demonstrated a lot of ability in basic fact retention. The evidence has been posted over and over again, but still it doesn't seem to stick.

[jefferson_dem]

66. What facts, exactly?

Granted, Greewald ponies up some pretty tasty raw meet that some reactionary folks love to gobble up. But it's an opinion piece based on his own predispositions and assumptions... That's fine. But don't call them facts.

[jgraz]

75. Like these

08/16/09: Obama doesn't mention Public Option on NYT OpEd: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8591084

08/18/09: White House signals Public Option may be dropped: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18talkshows.html

09/04/09: White House memo omits support for Public Option: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/white-house-polling-memo-omits-numbers-showing-support-for-public-option/

09/06/09: White House backs away from requiring Public Option: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32714404/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

10/18/09: White House reaffirms Public Option not a priority: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802152.html

10/23/09: Public Option near, but White House pushes Trigger: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/public-option-success-close-white-hou

10/24/09: Obama actively discourages Senate's Public Option: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

12/06/09: Obama silent on Public Option in speech to Senators: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/obama-silent-on-public-op_n_381847.html


Are you starting to see a pattern?

[jefferson_dem]

76. Thanks for the links.

I see you had to dig them up yourself since they were not included in Greenwalds opinion piece.

So the White House never publicly drew a line in the sand on the public option. We knew that. But we do not know what was going on behind the scenes, which is where the lion's share of legislative negotiations happen.

[jgraz]

77. It really didn't take that much digging.

The main challenge was sorting through the hundreds of hits on "White House doesn't support Public Option".

And some of these ARE behind-the-scenes stories, either trial balloons or genuine leaks. The 10/24 and 12/06 articles specifically deal with private negotiations. There are many more stories like this.

07/07/09: White House open to deal on Public Option: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692407982802911.html

09/02/09: White House offers "trigger" to Snowe: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/02/snowe-trigger-wh

10/16/09: Obama's 'trigger' stance irks the Hill: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/26/obamas_trigger_stance_irks_the.html

11/11/09: White House Pushes Trigger: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/white-house-thinks-trigge_n_354380.html


And on and on and on...

[jefferson_dem]

80. It's pretty clear...

There were never ever 60 votes for the public option, regardless of all the leveraging and horse trading the White House engaged in.

That sucks.

[jgraz]

81. But were there 60 votes to get past a filibuster?

We'll never know because they never tried.

[jgraz]

47. Obama only gives those speeches when his personal career is on the line

When it's the people who voted for him? Not so much.

[Zodiak]

55. Unfortunately, it does seem to be a pattern

I guess the American left has now become the Reverend Wright, thrown under the bus by a President that needed us a while ago, and now no longer feels he can benefit any more from the relationship.

[freddie mertz]

4. K & R. The folks who keep reposting that excuse here need to read this.

THIS is the reality that underlies our political system, and what it implies about our president's actual motives and character is almost too horrible for even me to contemplate.

[1776Forever]

25. I am with you! There are more un-recs on my post about what Conyers said a month ago then recs!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x62216

Some say it is hate spewing to say the Obama Admin has not done enough to fight the good fight! I say it is the true democracy! It is good to cheer good policies and good to say when they are not good! I am NOT a GOP sheep nor will I every be a Democrat sheep!

[freddie mertz]

38. They are, in my opinion, just trying to hold on a very beautiful dream.

I wanted to hold on to it too.

But the facts are the facts, and we cannot deny what is in front of our eyes any more.

I began to see behind the fog with the "sliver" speech, and I caught unholy hell for pointing out what that meant.

The fact that this speech was delivered days after I helped stage a huge rally in support of Sen Specter against a hired mob of tea baggers only rubbed salt in the wound.

It seemed like I was being betrayed, stabbed in the back. And I was, and we all were.

[Zodiak]

Nope, didn't see any efforts

I saw Emmanuel going to progressives to tell us to shut up

I saw Emmanuel telling progressives to be nice to the centrists instead of putting pressure on them

so yeah, Obama did put forth an effort....TO SHUT DOWN PROGRESSIVES.

It is no wonder the progressives are pissed off, and no amount of cajoliing them, ridiculing them, or telling them they are children is going to make them come home. Face it, the party fucked up, and the party is fucking up BIGTIME thinking they can use their bully techniques to get the left to come back home. We have a hearty "fuck you" for that attitude.

It's 1994 and 2000 all rolled into one, and the party has no one but themselves to blame for their goddamned cowardice and their need to show animosity towards the left. They can all go fuck off with their abusive relationship.

[Dragonfli]

10. That's it in a nutshell /nt

[katandmoon]

13. THANK YOU.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

28. You need to read more news sources, I guess.

The facts are pretty much out there.

Have you seen yesterday's WH Senate-Pres press conference?

That tape speaks volumes, not just the words, but who is shown standing there.

Right behind the president, the leering jack o'lantern grin of Max Baucus, who looks like he just had a very nice dinner (on the corpse of the public option, with fava beans and a nice Chainti?).

[uponit7771]

35. WTF does this have to do with the depth of power of the president on the senate majority leader?

Again, we can pass the regulation controls on the insurance companies then pass the cost controls via reconciliation and this thing would be over with by new years.

Obama can't MAKE Reid do either...

TIA for any factual answer...

[freddie mertz]

42. Did you take a civics class in HS?

Honestly, your argument flies in the face of what we know about how our government works.

I see little if any objectivity in your argument.

sorry.

[Zodiak]

46. That is a poster who likes to use the "pony" line.

I had to alert on him a couple of times yesterday because of the insulting nature of his posts towards other DUers.

People who use "pony" are not interested in discourse, just insults. Best to ignore.

[uponit7771]

67. Civics 101, the president is not a dictator he can not MAKE the senate majority leader do anything

[mcablue]

74. Threatening Lieberman with stripping him of his Homeland Security chairmanship may have worked

Then again, it may not have worked. There was only one way to find out: by doing it. And The President tried neither that nor other pressure tactics proposed by Greenwald and Adam Greene, to whom GG linked. One thing the President did do was call the public option a "sliver" of the whole. Do you think that calling the public option a "sliver" can be described as "pressure"? That's a heck of a low bar for something to qualify as pressure.

You will probably reply that these kinds of pressure tactics wouldn't have worked, but we can't guess outcomes, unless my name or your name is Nostradamus or something.

Greenwald criticizes the lack of effort rather than just the lack of results.

[treestar]

36. You mean without Rahm the progressives would suddenly have

60 Senators? Without Emmanuel LIEberman would be a progressive willing to toss aside the electorate who sent him? If Rahm were just fired, the population would suddenly become progressive. Do you know anything about Missouri, Montana or Nebraska? Do you think they are full of progressives?

[Zodiak]

56. Wow...what a bunch of strawmen!

None of those things were stated, so take those insulting strawmen and shove them up your ass. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who is not the least bit intellectually honest. Thank you.

[Hun Joro]

6. Just cancelled an unreccer...

[uponit7771]

19. If the OP was dealing in facts or would even debate them then I wouldn't need to unrec

[freddie mertz]

29. Greenwald has the facts and the dead on analysis.

That is why he is being unrec'd.

Facts will lead to the truth, and unfortunately in this case, the truth is not pretty.

[uponit7771]

31. It's being unrec'd cause GreenWald said Obama did nothing and that is false on it face.

[freddie mertz]

43. No, its being unrec'd because some do not want to ACCEPT the facts. nt.

[mcablue]

57. A more fair statement would be "It's being rec'd"

Since more people have rec'ed it than not.

[jefferson_dem]

61. Please reference said "facts" in this self-described "opinion" piece.

n/t

[treestar]

20. Still don't get why the chairmanship is such a big deal

Why Obama can take it away - it's a Senatorial thing - and why LIEberman would care. he could still vote/filibuster without that.

As for threatening him regarding election funds, pork, etc. - what do the Conn. voters think? They voted for Obama - he'd have to be convinced they pick Obama over Lieberman.

[uponit7771]

24. Its not, the OP is trying to make Obama responsible for something he can't fully control by...

..."mistating" the depth of the power of the president on the senate majority leader.

[treestar]

32. And that realistictly pointing out that the President is not all powerful

is claiming he is "helpless."

[jefferson_dem]

63. Isn't it ironic that the same "progressives" who slammed Chimpy

for being an over-reaching, unitary, executive are now whining that Obama has not been enough of a dictator. :eyes:

[Mithreal]

83. Yeah, that's it, they aren't real progressives, you get em.

Loves me some logical fallacy.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Sounds like someone needs a civics lesson

<joke>

[uponit7771]

26. Yeap, and a few brush ups on facts

[chimpymustgo]

39. Greenwald speaking the TRUTH too many cannot HANDLE.

[bvar22]

45. The White House demonstrated plenty of "Strong Arm" skill...

..when Obama needed the votes for his supplemental Defense Appropriation (more money for WAR).

He was able to expert pressure on House members who had campaigned on "No more money for WAR".

They were told that if they didn't vote for Obama's WAR, the "door to the White House would be permanently closed to them". They were told, "We will come to your district and campaign AGAINST you."

So the Obama White House knows HOW to get what they want.
They are choosing NOT to in the case of HCR.

"the lack of any such efforts is extremely telling about what the White House really wanted here."

[democracy1st]

52. this admin is pure bs

[jefferson_dem]

58. Greenwald delivers another baseless, reductionistic, snarky smear against the White House.

And this one is particularly lame.

So many baseless assumptions, it's hard to know where to begin. Greenwald has no clue what kind of behind the scenes pressures / maneuvering the Administration has leveraged.

[uponit7771]

70. THANK YOU!!!!! ****BASELESS***** is the keyword here and some want to argue that

...the guys conjecture should be taking as fact!

[Phx_Dem]

71. Yawn. I quit carring what Greenwald thought long ago.

:puke:

[Better Believe It]

72. K & R

[ipaint]

78. health insurance stocks are soaring.

"Meanwhile, as one would expect, health insurance stocks are soaring today in response to the industry-serving "health care reform" bill backed by the Democratic Senate and White House -- the same people who began advocating the need for "health care reform" in order to restrain on an out-of-control and profit-inflated health insurance industry (h/t Markos)."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/


The health insurance companies sure do have themselves a hell of a president. Too bad he's not the side of the working class, we may have actually gotten reform instead of a mandate.

[Marsala]

79. Ah yes, the "Green Lantern" theory of legislation

Obama could get what we want passed, if only he had more willpower!

[Mithreal]

82. You're right, more willpower, that's the ticket.

Str_w M_n

Did you even read it?

[slipslidingaway]

84. knr nt