Politico — President Obama distances himself from Nancy Pelosi
The White House is getting ready for the Super Bowl of health-care town halls. The president heads today to libertarian-leaning New Hampshire for his first health care town hall since the congressional recess began and opponents started making a ruckus and the presidents’ supporters started pushing people around.
Writer Nia-Malika Henderson explains how as the president gets ready to face the nation on health care, he is distancing himself from the provocative comments by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the protesters are un-American. It was a strange piece of tit-for-tatism from the speaker, presumably still steaming over the unofficial accusations of unpatriotism against Iraq war protesters.
But Pelosi also makes a good foil for Obama, allowing the president to try to return to his preferred role as conciliator. The White House erred badly last week in trying to push back directly against the protests by encouraging email snitching and the president telling his opponents to “not do a lot of talking.”
But the stakes probably aren’t as high for the president’s town halls as the White House expects. First, the presence of the president (and a huge security apparatus) tends to make people more respectful. Second, unless he’s decided to change his few positions on the issue or begin dealing in specifics, Obama doesn’t have anything new to say.
Adopting the conciliator’s tone works with helping people accept inevitable change, not fighting a political war of opportunity.
“Two additional health care town halls are scheduled for the rest of the week and a White House spokesman said that Obama will offer a more detailed and more specific explanation of why he believes health reform must be done this year.
At a news conference to close a North American summit in Mexico Monday, Obama predicted that Congress will pass health reform this year. ‘We are having a vigorous debate in the United States and I think that’s a healthy thing,’ Obama said. ‘I suspect that once we get into the fall and people look at the actual legislation that’s being proposed, that more sensible and reasoned arguments will emerge, and we’re going to get this passed.’”
New York Times — White House Adapts to New Playbook in Health Care Debate
The White House is rebooting its health-care pitch (probably for the third time), this time as a tough, no-nonsense defender of reform against “misinformation” and “rumors” and player of hardball with the press. It’s the same mode team Obama used in the campaign.
But this isn’t electing a president, this is changing the way America works. That’s a tougher task than getting people to vote for a nice guy with a good stump speech and a compelling story.
The major difference between the Bush administration’s effort to reform Social Security and the Obama administration’s effort to reform health care seems to be that the Obama effort actually matters to people – in and out of the White House.
For the Bushies, Social Security was always a bit of a sideshow because everyone knew that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would remain the top priorities and no plan to fix the long-term health of public pensions was going to interfere.
But for the Obama White House, health care is the whole shooting match. Foreign policy remains something of an afterthought and there is no higher domestic calling. That means they’re deeply invested in seeing something pass.
But voters are intense too because people are talking about matters of money and life and death.
But as writers Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes show, the White House is still fighting the last war. So maybe health care is Iraq not Social Security…
“For some of Mr. Obama’s supporters, the newly galvanized opposition to his proposed policies provided a troubling flashback to the successful effort to stop President Bill Clinton’s similarly ambitious plans 16 years ago — a fight Mr. Obama’s aides had studied carefully to avoid making the same fatal mistakes.
White House officials say such fears are unwarranted, arguing that the conservative protests are getting outsize coverage on cable news. ‘Don’t associate loud with effective,’ Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said in an interview, adding that he detected no anxiety from supportive lawmakers in politically vulnerable districts. ‘What is coming across is a lot of noise and a lot of heat without a lot of light.’
And White House officials say their August counteroffensive is a break from the Clinton approach, which is now viewed as having failed to adequately address critics.”
Financial Times — Obama faces tough choices on Afghanistan
Writer Edward Luce gives a great overview of the state of play in Afghanistan, where the U.S. policy is in flux.
Just today, one can read stories about our troops now eradicating opium crops, following narrow rules of engagement and facing an ever-expanding mandate with insufficient resources.
Luce uses the favored military term for a inexplicable situation — Whisky Tango Foxtrot – to sum up the way a perplexed President Obama is feeling about a war that may be getting away from him and an expected request for another 30,000 troops.
“Some are even talking about ‘quagmires’ and drawing parallels between Mr Obama and Lyndon Baines Johnson, whose desperate attempts to accelerate victory in Vietnam in the 1960s were dictated by the political timetable. LBJ’s failure in Vietnam also brought the ‘Great Society’ of ambitious domestic reforms juddering to a halt.
Such comparisons are overblown. But, in politics, perception trumps reality. Nor does politics reward strategic patience – precisely the quality Mr Obama will need to yield fruit in Afghanistan. Next week, the White House will do its best to hail the results of the presidential election, which is likely to result in the re-election of the ineffectual Hamid Karzai. After that, thousands more coalition troops, including several hundred British, are likely to drift home.
As the US becomes an ever more dominant component of the International Security Assistance Force, it is worth recalling another piece of Pentagon acronymitis. ISAF, according to US military humour, stands for ‘I saw America fight,’ or even ‘I suck at fighting.’ Mr Obama already owns this war. As time goes on it will get lonelier.”
Wall Street Journal — Lawmakers Urged to Raise Nation’s Debt Limit
Just one more time, was the plea last week from Secretary Timothy Geithner who wrote Congress to ask that the national debt ceiling be increased beyond the current $12.1 trillion.
As writers Michael R. Crittenden and Patrick Yoest explain, Congress can hardly say no, because the spending obligations in the pipeline would already break the limit. Saying no would amount to either rejecting authorized spending or defaulting on existing debt.
What’s different this time is that the request is unexpected, unspecified in volume and needs to be done in a hurry. The measure will pass, but the GOP will be watching.
“Congressional Republicans appear ready to use a vote on whether to raise the debt ceiling to contrast their approach on economic issues with Democrats and argue that the Obama administration’s agenda on health care and climate change would further exacerbate the country’s fiscal challenges.
‘It’s a clear that we’ve got a sign that we’ve got a federal government that is out of control from the fiscal standpoint,’ said Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.), who leads the conservative Republican Study Committee in the House. ‘I don’t see how anyone can vote in favor of an increase in the debt ceiling and say they’re doing it is a responsible way.’
Wall Street Journal — Congress Retreats Over Jet Purchase
Jets? What jets?
Facing an uproar over capriciously doubling the Pentagon’s request for executive-style aircraft used to ferry members of Congress to fact-finding missions to Antigua and other trouble spots, appropriators are backing down from a $550 million piece of self-service.
Even the hard shell of Rep. John Murtha was cracked by the on air and on line outrage. His position has been softened by the persistent scandals that haunt him, but the fear of a bipartisan repudiation when the Senate takes up he bill is what likely got him to run for cover.
Writers Brody Mullins and T.W. Farnham have the details:
“If the Department of Defense does not want these aircraft, they will be eliminated from the bill,” said Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), the chairman of the House panel that sought the aircraft order.
The House will seek only $220 million to purchase one Gulfstream plane and three Boeing Co. aircraft, which was the original request by Department of Defense officials.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California supported Mr. Murtha’s decision to retreat from the larger order, her spokesman said.”
| Receive Morning Must Reads in your Inbox |
For Email Newsletters you can trust
