Left to Obama: Why Can’t You Be More Like Bush?

August 18, 2009 at 11:11 am | Posted in Barack Obama, health care | 12 Comments
Tags: George Bush, healthcare debate, Matt Taibbi, Max Baucus, Rolling Stone

Looking for Taibbi’s article on the healthcare reform bill out this week and came across his latest blog post on Truth Slant:

“I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency?

To quote Method Man’s Calvin “Cheese” Wagstaff character from The Wire, “This is some shameless shit right here.”

First of all, the fact that he quotes The Wire is amazing. Second, who would have predicted that 8 months into his term Obama would be making Bush look good? For all the vitriol directed at the former president for acting like a cowboy-bully in the White House, it’s ironic that the left is asking Obama : Why can’t you be more like Bush?

But, politically speaking, I wonder how productive it is for Democrats to rail against their party as weak or afraid of its own shadow. Is it really what’s best for the party? And could it do more harm than good? I hestitate to step into the echo chamber and agree with the cricitism of democratic weakness because it usually perpetuates a talking point whose origin can usually be traced back to the RNC. Democrats will never be billed as the strong, united party when its accused as being weak at the faintest sign of a flinch. But, the Dems do need a kick in the butt. They are dropping the ball on healthcare reform by letting the Republicans control the debate. Remember this death panel rumor was one they should have been prepared for. For the sake of the party and healthcare reform, dems need to be told grow a backbone — without being call spineless.

12 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

The blue dogs are more like wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are the casue of all of this. If the Dems would just act united once, they could get this done, with a public option and “death panels” (you know what I mean). I’m just curious why things are dropping out of this healthcare bill every day now? Is the president’s strategy to seek the moon and stars and settle for something less, just b/c it’s something and not nothing? It’s frustrating. I wonder how mush harder he would be fighting for everything in the original package if this were his second term? Can we please have leadership that want to lead, rather than leaders who are more concerned with remaining so?

It’s dissappointing for me to say these things b/c I really want to support Obama. But he seems to be giving in too much. If the GOP owned the house, senate and Oval Office, you’d be damned certain they wouldn’t be caving on anything.

Comment by bones— August 18, 2009 #

Reply
Asking “what’s best for the party?” Really? Uh, yeah. That’s my big concern. Forget getting the strongest reform bill we can. Let’s do what’s best for the party b/c, after all, weekly polling numbers and political horse-races are what’s really important when someone needs to see a doctor.

All for the party!

Comment by Carl— August 18, 2009 #

Reply
- I’m all for getting the strongest healthcare reform bill we can. Where I disagree with you is believing we can achieve that goal by going overboard with attacks on our own party, that’s all.
  
  Comment by hotfiler— August 18, 2009 #
  
  Reply
  - Who is going overboard? And what’s wrong with holding the conservadems and blue dogs’ feet to the fire? A public option (at LEAST that) is central to the entire Obama agenda, and the reason why many of us voted for him.
    
    It sounds like you would be willing to gut reform, leaving millions of people uncovered, with the insurance industry still running the show, all for the sake of playing softball and doing “what’s best for the party.”
    
    If that is not your point, then what is it exactly? You don’t want to play hardball with conservadems and blue dogs…why, exactly?
    
    Comment by Carl— August 18, 2009 #
  - Here’s the long and short of it.
    
    http://tinyurl.com/oxk797
    
    Sad, really.
    
    Comment by bones— August 18, 2009 #
Comment by adsjg— August 18, 2009 #

Reply
Isn’t this one of the biggest reasons we need a public plan?

http://tinyurl.com/nq9ftt

The cost to employers, I’m assuming, will go way down, if not to zero. Doesn’t the corporate wing of the GOP see this?

Comment by bones— August 18, 2009 #

Reply
if you spent $30 MILLION a day every single day for 2000 years it would still not equal to obama’s $23.7 TRILLLION in financial bailouts

… the main reasons why people get poorer are because of higher taxes and inflation.

Comment by James— August 18, 2009 #

Reply
- Who’s bailouts? Last I checked, Obama wouldn’t have to bail anything out if it wasn’t for Fuckface W.
  
  Comment by bones— August 19, 2009 #
  
  Reply
- LOL. Now it’s a $23.7 TRILLLION bailout? I guess it’s true since you put it in ALL CAPS!
  
  You may as well do what my 8-year-old niece does and come up with a number like seven hundred million thousand bajillion dollars.
  
  Comment by Carl— August 19, 2009 #
  
  Reply
  - Or a google. (think anyone remembers that google is an actual word?)
    
    Comment by bones— August 19, 2009 #
It’s time like these that I am happy to live in Massachusetts. Go Barney!

Comment by bones— August 19, 2009 #

Reply