Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama Does the 'Compromise' Dance With the GOP and Comes Up Short (Again)

Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly at 10:02 AM on May 5, 2009.


Karen Tumulty shares an important anecdote about negations over health care reform.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Health and Wellness in your
mailbox!

 

Karen Tumulty shares an important anecdote about negations over health care reform.

When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support for the bill. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by the Republicans and certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?

Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.

So far, we've seen quite a bit of this when the president and the shrinking congressional minority disagree. President Obama sought a stimulus package, for example, and hoped to win over Republicans with a healthy dose of tax cuts. What did Republicans respond with? Nothing, except a counter-proposal with nothing but huge tax cuts.

The president also wants health care reform. He doesn't want to curb malpractice awards, but he's willing to compromise and make concessions to win over Republicans. What is the GOP willing to compromise on? Not a thing. They want the folks who won the elections and are pushing a popular idea to move closer to them -- in exchange for nothing.

As Matt Yglesias explained, "I think it makes a certain amount of sense for a battered minority party to say to hell with bipartisan compromise, now it's your turn to govern by your ideas and pay the consequences when they fail. But that's not really what's happening here. Instead the minority whines that White House isn't doing enough to compromise, but doesn't actually want any kind of compromises."

Obama drove this point home last week, during the White House press conference.

"[T]o my Republican friends, I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine. I can't sort of define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn't work, and the American people voted to change. But there are a whole host of areas where we can work together.

"And I've said this to people like Mitch McConnell. I said, 'Look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I've -- we should have a public plan. That may be philosophically just too much for you to swallow. On the other hand, there are some areas like reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance where you do agree with me. If I'm taking some of your ideas and giving you credit for good ideas, the fact that you didn't get 100 percent can't be a reason every single time to oppose my position.' And if that is how bipartisanship is defined, a situation in which, basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in an historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress.

"If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be some differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard-core differences that we can't resolve but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress."

If only Republicans wanted to make progress, reaching out to them would make more sense and produce better results.

Digg!

Tagged as: republicans, gop, obama, healthcare, compromise

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."


Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster Healthcare Bill, Says Public Option Is "Unnecessary"
Lieberman calls it a "matter of conscience."
Post by Amanda Terkel. November 9, 2009.
House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
House Takes Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment, Threatening Women's Rights
The House leadership bows to anti-choice congressmen, allowing them a vote on an anti-choice amendment to the health-care bill.
Post by RH Reality Check. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Stand up guys
Posted by: 2thepoint on May 5, 2009 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why make concessions just to make a socialist President happy. Lets have politicians that do the right thing and forget dancing with the other guy! Obama hasn't gotten that yet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Feeding the trolls Posted by: abbadon2007
» RE: Stand up guys Posted by: luzmejor
» 2 the pointed head Posted by: FoonTheElder
Labelling Obama a "socialist" is a cruel joke
Posted by: goodsensecynic on May 6, 2009 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite chronic underfunding and a temporary neocon minority government, the Canadian medicare system is hobbling along, and remains manifestly superior to the HMO-run, for profit system in the USA. While we have our problems, we at least understand that health care is a fundamental right, not a commodity to be purchased in the marketplace from providers whose principal interest is in making money.

As a 64-year-old male, I suffer from prostate cancer, heart disease and am border-line diabetic. As well, I am not independently wealthy and, if I were to live in the USA, I could not afford private health insurance, even if some company was daft enough to offer me a policy.

Yet, contrary to American misperceptions, I have access to all the bells and whistles of high-tech diagnosis and treatment. A nuclear scan two weeks ago and a scheduled ventricular ablation should buy me another decade or two on the planet. Also contrary to American misperceptions, I have complete freedom to choose my family doctor and the growing number of specialists who attend to my troubles.

And what does it cost me? To be honest, I don't know, for I do not surrender cash, cheque or money order when I go in for my increasingly frequent pokings and proddings. I have never received a bill, and I never will.

I do know that I've (sometimes grumpily, but always faithfully) paid my taxes for about forty-five years, during which I called upon the medical profession for an occasional check-up and the reapir of a broken bone following a car accident, but otherwise I have mainly subsidized others. Now, I it is my turn to draw upon the public purse.

(Incidentally, since per capita health care costs in Canada are roughly half those in the USA, our taxes are far from excessive.)

I therefore shake my head in sadness (though, sadly, not in disbelief) at the citizens of the United States who seem scared into intellectual numbness by the invocation of the word "socialism" and its mindless application to your president - whom people in the real world understand to be a rather timid pragmatist of thoroughly vapid ideological inclinations and centre-right behaviour.

When, for example, we look at both what he says (opposition to gay marriage, support for capital punishment) and what he does (escalation of the war[s] in the Middle East, refusal to engage with Cuba without preconditions guaranteed to scuttle any serious talk of normalization of relations, apparently almost limitless aid to the corrupt financial industry and tepid and generally ineffective initiatives to reduce poverty domestically and globally), we wonder what puny definition of socialism has insinuated itself into the minds of our neighbours to the south.

Make no mistake, your president is no socialist! By global standards, he is bright and charming, but is otherwise a pretty ordinary conservative politician, whose ideology is mostly congruent with that of our ridiculously right-wing prime minister. If he can be described as a socialist by your corporate media and understood by your electorate to have such leanings, you almost deserve your fate as the last important bastion of largely unfettered corporate capitalism.

The pity is that so many people in the USA remain deprived of decent health care (and your plummeting statistics on longevity, infant mortality and overall quality of life prove it), and that your outmoded and frankly immoral market mentality continues to encourage right-wing ideologues in other countries.

I do not expect the USA to lead the world into the 21st century in matters of ecological sanity, social policy and the quest for something close to global peace and stability, but it will be a happy day when your compatriots are dragged kicking, screaming and spouting creationism, into the 20th.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Negotiating with
Posted by: BimBeau on May 6, 2009 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Republican'ts is like talking to the Palestinians. To compromise with the opposition is for the opposition to cave-in to the Pals (or Republican'ts) demands. The sooner O'Bama understands this --- the sooner we have solutions in the states and in the middle-east.

Pals & Pubs don't negotiate in good faith; they only negotiate from a position of accepted fealty by the opposition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

intentional misprint
Posted by: nechayev on May 6, 2009 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Negations over health care...I love it. Twice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gadflypat
Posted by: pest on May 6, 2009 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you can't dance with a party that "JUST SAYS NO!"-UNLESS YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO DANCE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since you mention malpractice. . .
Posted by: Walt K on May 6, 2009 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . tort "reform" is not the route to go, just another GOP myth.

I spent 2 1/2 years working malpractice claims (on the doctor's side). It was usually the insurance carrier that forced settlement, even if the doctor had done nothing wrong, was backed by reviewing doctors, and wanted to fight. Unfortunately, there were far too many serial offenders among the doctors, and their major crime was (and still is, although they've taken some small steps) is that they don't police their own profession and get rid of the doctors who repeatedly screw up.

Putting limits on malpractice claims will do more harm by leaving injured plaintiffs on the hook for a lifetime of medical bills, among other injustices. Our right to sue is one of the few weapons we've got in the fight against total corporate domination.

So I certainly hope the GOP have scotched this "compromise" with their bad attitude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]