Politico — Under fire, Obama shifts strategy
After two brutal months, Team Obama is ready to try something different but can’t seem to decide what that would be.
In the same way that Karl Rove once did, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod gave some interviews to lay the groundwork for the next political gambit. In an indication of the state of confusion is, Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei took Axelrod to be saying that a compromise was in the offing while the Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman and Janet Adamy heard Axelrod talking about getting tough with opponents.
Both are probably right, but that an already muddled message remains this confused shows that problems and internal disagreements likely persist.
The administration seems to be telegraphing a willingness to drop the idea of a new government insurance plan in favor of a bipartisan pitch for mandatory coverage with big subsidies and new insurance regulations, as Politico reports. On the other hand, the White House seems likely to try again to put the blame on Republicans and the insurance industry, as the Journal reports.
One thing is for certain, President Obama will give a speech. What he will say and whether he is finally ready to let on what he wants instead of just tearing down anti-reform straw men and telling sad stories about his grandmother seems to be the current point of contention at the executive mansion.
The president tried being forcefully vague for weeks to negative effect. To make a difference he will have to take a stand.
Allen and Vandehei explain why Team Obama says worse is better:
“‘We’re entering a new season,’ senior adviser David Axelrod said in a telephone interview. ‘It’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done. We’re confident that we can do that. But obviously it is a different phase. We’re going to approach it in a different way. The president is going to be very active.’
Top officials privately concede the past six weeks have taken their toll on Obama’s popularity. But the officials also see the new diminished expectations as an opportunity to prove their critics wrong by signing a health-care law, showing progress in Afghanistan, and using this month’s anniversary of the fall of Lehman Brothers to push for a crackdown on Wall Street.
On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.
‘We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition,’ an aide said. ‘There are lots of different ways to get there.’”
Bloomberg — Obama’s Threat to Bypass Republicans on Health May Be ‘No Win’
The threat of doing major health care legislation through budget reconciliation may prove to be an empty one as Democrats blanche at the thought of making a massive change in the way the nation operates on a party-line procedural vote.
Writer Kristen Jensen touches on the issue of the potential voter backlash scaring away too many moderate Democrats to make even reconciliation impossible, her main focus is on the potential procedural obstacles.
But at a certain point, the procedural and the political merge.
“[Sen. Kent] Conrad has repeatedly said the result would be ‘Swiss cheese’ for legislation. ‘It does not work very well,’ the North Dakota Democrat said on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ on Aug. 23.
Conrad and [Sen. Robert] Byrd warned against the procedure in April, before the Senate on a 53-43 vote passed a budget with nonbinding rules allowing for reconciliation.
‘Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far- reaching legislation is an abuse,’ Byrd said in an April 29 statement.
Besides Byrd and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, one of the four Democrats who voted against the budget was Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, who said he disagreed with the provision allowing reconciliation for health care. The fourth, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, ‘opposes using reconciliation,’ though he hasn’t ruled out voting for it, said spokesman Jake Thompson.”
Los Angeles Times – U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan
The Pentagon is preparing for something of a surge on the cheap n Afghanistan with a plan to contract out between 6,000 and 14,000 non-combat positions, bring the compound guards and clerks home and replace them with “trigger pullers” for patrol duty.
The move allows the White House a way to temporarily increase the size of the fighting force without having to ask Congress for more funds.
Senior administration officials believe that the war is soon going to turn the corner and that a short-term injection of fighting force may be just the ticket. Conservatives, meanwhile, say that the administration is trying to do too much and using sleight of hand to do it.
Writer Julian Barnes says that the move may be part of an effort to prime the pump by Gen. Stanley McChrystal for an expected request of more troops. The move might enhance short-term security showing reason for hope and demonstrate that the military is doing more with less.
But the use of contractors isn’t without controversy, especially on the Left.
“In Afghanistan, a government watchdog group said Tuesday that many of the 450 private guards employed by a subsidiary of U.S.-based Wackenhut Services Inc. have engaged in lewd and drunken behavior in a ‘Lord of the Flies’ environment. The workers guard the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, the capital, under a $189-million contract.
State Department officials said they are investigating.
Critics have charged that the military has relied too heavily on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, handing over too many crucial responsibilities to outsiders.
A recent Congressional Research Service found that there were more contractors than military personnel serving in Afghanistan. The report was based on figures gathered in March, before additional troops ordered by Obama began arriving.”
Washington Post — Afghans Brace for Unrest Over Vote Tally
Afghan elites seem to be fairly dreading the news that would have once been considered a cause for celebration – an outright majority for President Hamid Karzai in last month’s elections.
Writer Pamela Constable suggests that while avoiding a runoff was once considered a good thing, Karzai’s growing margins may provoke broader claims of illegitimacy and reduce opposition leader Abdullah Abdullah’s motivation to call for calm and orderly dissent.
The U.S. seems to be without an answer except wait and see. The U.N., as usual, favors corrupt stability.
“Despite the domestic and international concerns about an illegitimate election, the complaints commission is also under pressure to somehow address the fraud problem without forcing a second election. Many Afghans and outside observers say a runoff would be costly, stressful and just as vulnerable to fraud and insurgent attacks as the Aug. 20 poll. A flawed single election that lets the country get back to normal, they argue, would be the lesser evil.
‘Would a second round clear the air and have more legitimacy? That’s a question mark,’ said one U.N. official here, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He said it might be wiser for Afghans to forge a ‘consensus of governance, if not government,’ rather than force another electoral exercise in the middle of a guerrilla war.
But neither Karzai nor Abdullah appears inclined to reach out. Both represent ethnic groups that are bitter longtime rivals with large emotional and economic stakes in the outcome. Both have formed alliances with powerful figures who have demanded significant concessions in exchange for their support.”
Wall Street Journal — U.S. Economy Gets Lift From Stimulus
There are three main bets from the Obama administration on the table – first the stimulus package, then the escalation of the Afghan war and now the health care overhaul. The wagers are interconnected too. Incremental failures in the first two have harmed the odds for the third.
But writer Deborah Solomon says that while economists are of mixed minds about the long-term effects, the success of individual programs, and sustainability, the growing consensus is that the stimulus has had some effect and will continue to do so.
Voters so far have been skeptical about the stimulus, most believing it has helped but not enough to merit the huge cost. Democrats need to turn that perception around to avoid an electoral wipeout but also to salvage some kind of win on health care and prevent rebellion on funding for Afghanistan.
“Opinion, however, remains split about which program has had the biggest impact. ‘I don’t think the stimulus was necessarily as effective as people claimed it to be or claim it will be,’ said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist with Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. He credits the government’s ‘stress tests’ of banks, which helped boost confidence on Wall Street and allow banks to raise capital and resume lending.
Economists say other programs are having an impact, including an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home-buyers that has spurred home sales. The cash-for-clunkers program, which provided financial incentives for consumers to trade in older vehicles, did the same for cars.
One big question: Will the boost evaporate once the programs end?
Stuart Hoffman, chief U.S. economist for PNC Financial Services Group, said the stimulus package ‘caused this bit of a concentrated burst [that] probably will exaggerate the pace of economic growth,’ since some areas, such as auto sales, could fall back to low levels.”
–To get Morning Must Reads in your inbox every weekday click here.
