If Barack Obama signs a health care reform bill later this year, today will have been its turning point. For a White House that admitted after Scott Brown's victory that it was facing a new political calculus without a contingency plan, today's summit is a remarkably impressive showing of a well-executed audible play.
Just weeks ago, health care reform appeared reasonably close to death. Few thought Democrats in the House and Senate would overcome what seemed like an impossible impasse. Reconciliation, while aggressively advocated by progressives, seemed like a nonstarter among moderate Democrats in the Senate. The White House remained committed to health care reform, but non-committal on a way forward.
At the time, the president's decision to put health care on hold for a month seemed like an unthinkable political strategy. But if today proves to be to the moment when Democrats retake control of the debate, and with it, control of health care reform's destiny, the president's strategy will prove to have been undeniably successful. The White House operated under the assumption that cooler heads within the party would prevail over time, that the conventional wisdom of progressives around the country would finally catch up to the conventional wisdom of the Beltway.
And largely, that seems to be right. Over the past weeks, Democrats on the hill have slowly but steadily arrived at the conclusion that their political survival is dependent on the party's ability to finish the health care battle. Reconciliation is no longer the rallying cry of the far left - Harry Reid is said to be close to having secured the 50 votes he'll need for the process, including those of the usual moderate thorns like Evan Bayh and Mary Landrieu.
If it works -- if Democrats pivot off of today's summit by introducing a reconciliation bill, and if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can cobble together a majority coalition to see it through, then the president's strategy will have given him an historic legislative victory, and an entirely new narrative for the November midterms.
It can work. And at this point, it has to. The president's decision to step back from the health care fight has left Democrats uneasy. Among the vast majority of Democrats who still approve of his performance, there are a substantial number who would rather classify themselves as "approving, but worried."
After all, the last five weeks have been devastating for loyal Democrats. Watching the news in the days after Scott Brown's victory was unbearable - the party hadn't been dealt such a serious setback since election day 2004.
But it wasn't just that Scott Brown won. It was that his win, more so than any other political moment, punctuated the defining differences between having 60 votes in the Senate and having 59. Only a year earlier, Barack Obama was sworn into office with a 58 seat majority in the Senate, a majority that Democrats almost universally described at the time as strong and able. Had we only known then what we know now.
In the wake of the Massachusetts election -- and the party's reaction to it -- progressives experienced a genuine crisis of confidence. Many rightly wondered -- and still wonder -- whether Washington can actually be changed and whether the Democratic party has the capacity to carry out its mission. As the president said in last week's weekly address, in a cadence that recalls Lincoln at Gettysburg, "What's being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem but our ability to solve any problem."
The task ahead for the president isn't easy. And it's made more difficult by the strategy he employed to get us here. When Democrats needed a pep talk, when they needed his reassurance, they didn't get any. Now, in the midst of a growing skepticism, the president has only one weapon in his arsenal that can restore that confidence: Action.
That begins today. But for the sake of the party, it must not end today. Health care must get passed. And the president must be the one to do the passing. At this final stage, he is the only one who can see it through. Our faith has been battered. Our confidence shaken. We need more than just a reason to hope. We need proof that our hopes can be realized.
Follow Dylan Loewe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dylanloewe
The great immorality of democracy is that we collectively vote for ourselves more and more goodies. . . at the expense of our children's future.
Obama doesn't care about the potential voters in 2012 because he won't be running. And he doesn't care about the voters in November because he is sacrificing his party for his legacy. The polls have told him all he needs to know. He just wants an asterisk by his name in the list of Presidents. First Black, and socialized health insurance (among other things).
Obama made his first mistake attempting to include the Republicans in anything . The citizens voted them out and they should have been kept out . In trying to be fair with a party that doesn't understand fair he ended up with this health care farce he now has . The same goes for all the other things that need to be done ; Do it and let the devil take the hind most .
But keep trying, dude. It makes it easier come November.
The one thing I found most interesting was this realization: I can't remember ever sitting in, via TV or radio, on any sort of high-level presidential meeting, where you got to see how a president handled himself as well as his protagonists and antagonists.
In so doing, it took Obama \ off the presidential pedestal and brought him down to a human level that many can relate to -- at least those who have had to work within a contentious meeting environment. It was almost as though we got to know the president on a scale we could relate to personally. Anyway, it left me with a question.
This question: re Obama's closing statement on the Republican's final window of opportunity was he saying (1) if the Repub reaction is meaningfully hopeful, Congress has 4-6 weeks to get it done, but if the response is same-old, then the Dems were ready to move much sooner than that, or (2) that the Repubs have 4-6 weeks to contemplate before anything will happen? I thought #1 but CNN seemed to be going with #2 -- what do you say?
You like being screwed ? The republicans dam near destroyed this country ,maybe already have, you really want that ?
The one thing that HAS changed which has a bearing on whether reconciliation is appropriate is that the rules on HOW a fillibuster is conducted have changed. In the past, great orators and lesser windbags would have to actually argue their points oln the Senate floor. Under current rules, a single Senator can stop a vote by issuing a "virtual" fillibuster... withour setting foot on the floor or missing a game on TV.
THAT'S JUST WRONG! And THAT'S why I'm all for reconciliation... make the bastards vote on legislation.... isn't THAT their friggin' job!!!!!!???????
CONGRESS - VOTE ON THIS! IT IT HAS TO GO TO RECONCILIATION TO GET A VOTE, DO IT. IF IT FAILS, WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AT LEAST WILL HAVE SOMETHING ON WHICH TO BASE OUR VOTES IN THE FALL.
I watched about 2 hours of the "summit" and all I heard was the same drivel that's been coming out of Washington for months. "Reconciliation is a non-no" from the GOP... "The Republicans used it plenty" from the Dems. I didn't hear ONE VOICE speak up and say that current Senate rules were unConsitutional and undemocratic. If it WAS said, I'd like someone to point me to where I can read/hear the comment and reactions to it.
Another thing, Obama campaigned on bipartisanship. I personally think that was the main problem with his inaction - He was trying to keep a campaign promise. Besides he learned his lesson well from the failed Clinton Healthcare Overhaul - Let Congress do its job then fine tune the legislature to get what you want.
Personally, I think we need a public option or even the opening of Medicare or the Congressional insurance to all citizens of the United States.
Why are Democrats, including the president, just now awakening to the fact that their survival depends on passage of health care reform? And that perhaps Republicans don't actually control Capitol Hill? Now, I wonder, Can they figure out that a robust public option exponentially will boost their prospects at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012?
(PS Senate Democrats never had 60 votes by any practical metric. I think the number was closer to 49, thanks to the 'moderates'.)
J
Obama has failed--and he failed the minute he took single payer off the table without getting anything in return from the Republicans.