Responding to my post on the Obama health care proposal, Obama supporter RF wrote this:
I think we definitely need to know what ideas the candidates have on the major issues, have an idea where each candidate would like to take us. But political reality is that the president will need to work with Congress on all legislation. No president will ever get exactly what s/he wants in any piece of legislation. It’s like obsessing about grammar and style in a rough first draft or an outline of an article, knowing that it will be completely rewritten.
Obviously any president will need to work with Congress. But it is very important to know what the president's starting point for negotiations will be.
I am a lousy negotiator, because I try to figure out what a fair compromise is, and that's my first offer. I have made that mistake several times in my life.
Look at Bush's record of legislative success. He puts in every bad idea on the Republican wish list, and he ends up getting almost everything he asks for. He doesn't say, Congress would never pass that extreme an energy bill. He just keeps asking for everything, even highly controversial things like drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In the end, ANWR was excluded from the bill, but Bush got all the other bad stuff he wanted.
Similar story on taxes. Bush has asked for all manner of ridiculous, unaffordable tax cuts. He kept asking, even if Congress didn't immediately pass what he asked for. At this point, the only thing he couldn't get through was the permanent repeal of the estate tax. But he aimed high and got almost everything else he wanted.
Hillary Clinton's starting point on health care will be a few nibbles here and there, trying to get health insurance for some portion of the enormous uninsured population. Even if Congress gave her everything she asked for (which wouldn't happen), we would be far from universal access to health care.
Barack Obama's plan seems much better than Hillary's, and more detailed, but from what I have read, it is also less than a universal plan, and it lacks some of the elements I like in Edwards' plan.
I am under no illusion that Congress would rubber-stamp what Edwards asks for, but I feel quite confident that he will drive a hard bargain and get us the best possible deal for health care. I feel that Clinton and Obama will not push Congress as hard on this issue.
On energy policy, so far Dodd, Richardson and Edwards have offered the most ambitious proposals to combat global warming. No doubt these would not get through Congress intact, but it is very important to aim high (e.g. policies that would achieve an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050).
So bring on the details, I say, and tell us what your legislative priorities would be.
4 Comments
being a candidate and governing are different things
I think your points about negotiating, starting points, compromising, etc. are valid. But, one should note that W did not campaign as an uncompromising ideologue. Remember, he was a compassionate conservative who was willing to accept mandatory caps on greenhouse gases and would never engage in questionable foreign adventures or nation building. I think having an uncompromising winger as our D nominee could endanger our chances of winning in ’08 (which look pretty good now). As much as we may not like it, a real progressive D is considered a winger by many middle of the road Americans – even in today’s political climate. But when you get to the White House, I agree with you about the negotiating tactics.
Talking about details and plans. Did you see my guest post on the Real Sporer? I was shocked how little Edwards and Hillary had substance on their web sites about the issues I was looking at – terrorism, Iraq, homeland security, foreign policy. In particular, I was surprised how Edwars had no details on Iraq. After all, it has been his big thing as of late and he has been attacking other D’s strongly.
rf Sat 2 Jun 6:20 PM
didn't see that post
I am only an occasional reader of Mr. Sporer (by the way, why is he the “real sporer”? are there Sporer imposters out there somewhere?).
Edwards does have materials on those topics–he’s got full texts of several speeches on foreign policy issues, the full text of his MoveOn town hall meeting on Iraq, etc. Here is one part of a statement issued by Edwards today, which sums up the key elements of his Iraq policy:
http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070602-permanent-bases-iraq/
Obviously it will take us a long time, probably a year, to complete the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but the sooner we start, the better.
As for your comment about Bush running as a compassionate conservative in 2000 and not an uncompromising ideologue, I guess I give Obama more credit than I give W.
I assume that when Obama repeats over and over again that we need to reach for common ground, consensus, find what unites us, etc., that he will not govern in a completely different style.
Obama is not my favorite candidate, but I don’t think he is an insincere fraud like W.
Obama’s rhetoric suggests to me that he will propose legislation that he thinks at least some Republicans will vote for. He doesn’t seem to want to propose solutions that would pass solely with Democratic votes.
I think Obama is naive–let’s remember that not a single Republican in Congress, even the so-called moderates like Jim Leach, voted for Clinton’s 1993 budget, even though the economic policies Clinton enacted as president were a far cry from the “putting people first” agenda he had campaigned on in 1992.
desmoinesdem Sat 2 Jun 11:48 PM
Edwards needs to reorganize his web page
since he really has nothing meaningful under his "issues" page on this topic. If one goes to the websites and wants finds out where candidates stand on different issues, that's where you automatically go. Not putting those issues there indicates they are not important topics. Plus, the statement you reprinted is about as general as one can get. I think he needs to seriously tone down his rhetoric on Iraq if this is the level of detail about his own plans he is willing to give us. I'm very surprised nobody has called him out on this.
I just watched a couple of the Edwards videos his campaign has put out. They reminded me of his strengths. He is so likeable in person, he can deliver a great speech, and I think he's most impressive when he's doing Q&A type stuff. No wonder he could captivate a jury. I've been harsh on him comparing him to our other contenders (and I currently rank Obama and Richardson ahead of him), but I still can't but like the man.
I have to say I'm a bit surprised about your apparent dislike of Obama. In my view, he's the ultimate liberal in moderate's clothing. He's voting record is pretty darn liberal, but he's willing to reach across the aisle. It's not like he's a "real moderate" in the mold of Mark Warner or Gov. Sebelius.
I think the "The Real" part of Sporer goes to the early days of Krusty Konservative. I believe there were some imposters.
rf Sun 3 Jun 10:05 AM
well, I probably don't dislike him as much as it seems
but he does rub me the wrong way in some respects, I admit that. I will have to write a fuller post on that sometime. I am sympathetic to the critique of Chris Bowers on MyDD (don't know if you are regular reader of that site–Chris worked on Obama's primary campaign in 2004 and was a big fan, but became disillusioned by Obama's tendency to promote himself by repeating right-wing frames and stereotypes about other Democrats).
That said, I would vastly prefer Obama to Clinton, and probably I would prefer him to Richardson too. Richardson is no progressive. I think Obama is a progressive at heart, but I doubt he would govern like one–I think he would be taking baby steps and trying to appease the Republicans.
desmoinesdem Mon 4 Jun 8:30 PM