|
I've been thinking about the bipartisan health care summit, and I go back to what Mike Lux said early in Obama's administration, which is that if Obama wants to do these "symbolic" outreach gestures to Republicans- along the lines of going to the Inauguration dinner honoring John McCain, meeting with Republican leadership, etc.- go ahead. With the bipartisan health care summit, the point seems twofold. The first part is that kind of bipartisan outreach to demonstrate that the President is indeed listening to Republicans and their ideas, like he said at the House Republican retreat.
The second part is unclear to me. A friend of mine involved with health care reform commented that it's either a great way to help the push to reconciliation, or it's the start of a campaign blame the Republicans for the failure of health care reform. To me, it could be two birds with one stone- emphasize how the Republicans are obstructing progress while using the summit to beat back the misinformation and strengthen public support. The important part, for those interested in finishing health care reform, is to emphasize the former, and treat it the way campaigns do debates- in the post-summit efforts, spin the results, use polling, and so forth.
Aside from intent here, the other aspect is performance. If Obama "brings it" like he did in Baltimore and during the Presidential debates last year, and demonstrates before a national audience that (a) the health care bill is better than it's made out to be, and (b) the Republicans are wrong on the facts, then the results could drive up support for the plan and strengthen the backbone of Democrats who are wavering on supporting a bill. If not, then health care reform could be in even deeper trouble. I see this summit as high risk and high reward, and it depends on what each side brings to the debate.
The one other thing I want to note is some of Obama's rhetoric on bipartisanship at his press conference yesterday (excerpts):
Now, bipartisanship depends on a willingness among both Democrats and Republicans to put aside matters of party for the good of the country. I won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but I also won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience. We talked about this as well, particularly when it comes to the confirmation process. I respect the Senate's role to advise and consent, but for months, qualified, non- controversial nominees for critical positions in government, often positions related to our national security, have been held up despite having overwhelming support. My nominee for one important job, the head of General Services Administration, which helps run the government, was denied a vote for nine months. When she finally got a vote on her nomination, she was confirmed 96 to nothing. That's not advise and consent; that's delay and obstruct...
But here's the point that I made to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell: Bipartisanship can't be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want, and that's the price of bipartisanship, right? But that's sometimes the way it gets presented...
Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That's not how it works in any other realm of life.
Well done, Mr. President. The key thing, as Jason Rosenbaum notes, is to point out that Republicans have had more than ample opportunities to contribute to the debate- both in terms of rhetoric and in terms of legislation. Republicans offered a substitute bill in the House. Baucus spent a great deal of time negotiating with Grassley, Enzi and Snowe. That's important to keep noting, and the President should point that out at the summit.
|
STATE BLOGS
