Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WSJ (Peggy Noonan): Pull the Plug on ObamaCare


SkinsNumberOne

Recommended Posts

Great article by Peggy Noonan, in my opinion. I think her points are valid and reflect a lot of problems Obama is currently facing.

I also agree that a lot of good came out of the Dem Pres / Rep Congress combo of the 90s, and I actually hope we can get the same combo.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574362971349563340.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall I agree with the author, but there are little things I differ on.

I think that Congress and Obama need to realize that they are overstepping the bounds of their authority with this legislation and that any reform should be in the form of reasonable regulation that is constitutionally sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you one that thinks the mandates are unconstitutional?

I think it is a overreach of power,but the constitutions has been stretched so much it is as likely to be ruled legal as not.

unfunded mandates 100% are wrong. Constitutionally it's a gray zone since they are neither permitted nor prohibited, but they break the spirit of the constitution.

mandates that are funded are a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the article. (Although I think the author may be reaching way too far in an attempt to recreate The Good Old Clinton Days.)

But I do agree that it's certainly not too late for Obama to save his mandate.

I've long held the opinion that the best combination for the most of the American people is a Dem President and Rep Congress. The ideological split that has occurred has seemed to leave a lot of people bereft of the idea that they can vote different parties in for the roles they fit.

The President, as leader of the Executive Branch, seems to be a good fit as a liberal. Many people tend to have at least some allegiance to socially liberal ideas (I'm not necessarily talking about his board's readership, but the American people at large).

Congress fits for the conservative side to pull in a fiscally conservative agenda - keep the purse strings tight. Further, rather than allow the long leash and ridiculous extremes we all know occur when 2 parties are in power in both legislative and executive branches, it just makes sense to have opposite parties.

It seems that much of America aligns themselves as "Fiscal conservative, Socially liberal" and yet they don't appear to vote that way.

So I actually don't think she's reaching. I'm not saying that it's magically going to recreate the same thing that happened in the 90s, but I didn't think she was either. I think she's saying the same general dynamic may form, which I have also thought (and I believe George Will has written about in a prior op-ed of his, but for the record I was talking about this in my own private circles before reading that piece).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've long held the opinion that the best combination for the most of the American people is a Dem President and Rep Congress. The ideological split that has occurred has seemed to leave a lot of people bereft of the idea that they can vote different parties in for the roles they fit.

The President, as leader of the Executive Branch, seems to be a good fit as a liberal. Many people tend to have at least some allegiance to socially liberal ideas (I'm not necessarily talking about his board's readership, but the American people at large).

Congress fits for the conservative side to pull in a fiscally conservative agenda - keep the purse strings tight. Further, rather than allow the long leash and ridiculous extremes we all know occur when 2 parties are in power in both legislative and executive branches, it just makes sense to have opposite parties.

It seems that much of America aligns themselves as "Fiscal conservative, Socially liberal" and yet they don't appear to vote that way.

So I actually don't think she's reaching. I'm not saying that it's magically going to recreate the same thing that happened in the 90s, but I didn't think she was either. I think she's saying the same general dynamic may form, which I have also thought (and I believe George Will has written about in a prior op-ed of his, but for the record I was talking about this in my own private circles before reading that piece).

My philosophy is much simpler.

There are only two things which the government can do: Seize money, or restrict freedom. Both can be good, if done for a good enough reason.

Gridlock insures that nothing gets done without a good enough reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My philosophy is much simpler.

There are only two things which the government can do: Seize money, or restrict freedom. Both can be good, if done for a good enough reason.

Gridlock insures that nothing gets done without a good enough reason.

Well of course that is at the core of the issue. But I'd further suggest that social liberalism is best served with a Democratic President as opposed to the "opposite" and fiscal conservatism is best served with a Republican Congress. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but combined with the desire for gridlock which is at the core of the question, I think that's the combination that best serves us in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bad read. Noonan's mellowing out in her old age. :)

I disagree with her assertion that 'I made a mistake' will be well received by everyone. I'm not saying Obama shouldn't say it, but his opponents will most certainly pounce. And pounce hard.

But yeah, if the best way out of this mess is to admit it's a mess and start over, that's what he should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to show that we are not taking away from Medicare and Medicaid we will just be "Opening" them up to be available to those not 'insured'.

Fixed.

We will then spend every waking hour making Big Pharma and the Tort reform see the light of a Congressional hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bad read. Noonan's mellowing out in her old age. :)

I disagree with her assertion that 'I made a mistake' will be well received by everyone. I'm not saying Obama shouldn't say it, but his opponents will most certainly pounce. And pounce hard.

But yeah, if the best way out of this mess is to admit it's a mess and start over, that's what he should do.

Well in the era of the soundbyte, even a carefully crafted response gets drilled down into pieces and made to make the speaker look foolish. But there CAN be a carefully crafted response that includes that line.

But the window of bias closes all of those minds anyway. I think part of the point is there is a mass of Americans who honestly don't ally themselves with either party, who remain open-minded. They would welcome a more open and honest debate over the issues that plague health care - and there are many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, Obama seems to have absolutely no ability to take criticism.

Axelrod wrote the following in a memo to Obama back when he was deciding whether or not to run for president.

"It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism... I don't know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you."

I see him betting the farm and going full-steam ahead. I just don't think he's got it in him to admit defeat, which is what it would look like if the plan gets watered down and the public option is taken out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with her assertion that 'I made a mistake' will be well received by everyone. I'm not saying Obama shouldn't say it, but his opponents will most certainly pounce. And pounce hard.

Of course they will.

Heck, a lot of them would pounce if he said "I resign".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, Obama seems to have absolutely no ability to take criticism.

Axelrod wrote the following in a memo to Obama back when he was deciding whether or not to run for president.

"It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism... I don't know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you."

Good quote. But, what, in terms of his actions, suggests that he can't take criticism? He's done an awful lot of stuff that he knew would be quite controversial. So, it's not like the guy is going out of his way to make sure he doesn't make waves. If anything, he's been too aggressive and dismissive of the opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good quote. But, what, in terms of his actions, suggests that he can't take criticism? He's done an awful lot of stuff that he knew would be quite controversial. So, it's not like the guy is going out of his way to make sure he doesn't make waves. If anything, he's been too aggressive and dismissive of the opposition.

I'd say you just answered your own question. Part of being able to take criticism is admitting that your opponents might be honest, decent people who just have a different idea of what's best for the country. Instead, he has dismissed, impugned motives, and demonized nearly every voice of opposition that has come up.

His "I don't want the folks who created the problems to do a lot of talking" quote speaks volumes for his ability to take criticism and listen to other ideas.

I'm not saying he hasn't been bold in his agenda. He has. But he seems to honestly believe that anybody who criticizes him is either deluded, a partisan hack, or an outright liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great article by Peggy Noonan, in my opinion. I think her points are valid and reflect a lot of problems Obama is currently facing.

I also agree that a lot of good came out of the Dem Pres / Rep Congress combo of the 90s, and I actually hope we can get the same combo.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574362971349563340.html

I think you either have to believe Barack Obama is politically Naive and mishandled his #1 domestic policy agenda, or you have to believe Obama is setting the Republicans up for what comes next....

What comes next is a partisan steam roller which attempts to stuff healthcare down the GOP's throat and turns around to the country and exclaims, we tried to engage them; and they refused.....

The GOP has lost control, the wing nuts are doing all the talking while the professional politians sit silently by watching from the wings. So stupid has the GOP's opposition to healthcare become that when Barney Frank engaged a Lindin La Rouche follower on the news, her position was indistinguishable from the Republicans.... She was represented as a GOP supporter and that was only corrected after the fact by interotating her off camera. That's not a good thing for Republicans, having their message confused with one of the most radical politicians ever to run for President five times.

This is political jujitso and Obama is about to use one of the GOP's few remaining strengths against them. Their disipline and ability to enforce unity in block republican oposition to any Obama proposal.

The county has seen Obama reach out to the GOP. It's seen him invite them to his super bowl party and meet with their media brain trust in private dinners. They've heard him talk nice on stimulus and even change the bill only to collect 2-3 Republican votes for his troubles. Now they've seen him be rational standing up against the wing nut faction of the GOP who have attempted to shout down and control through intimidation the debate..... Now when he stuffs healthcare down their throats, he will legitamately be able to claim he had no choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 million red blooded Americans couldn't afford to defend against Cancer if they got it, but even more would be perfectly willing to sacrifice them in order to maintain the status quo, for whatever reason they choose to believe in. Yeah, this countries full of such great people that love each other, more like a bunch of self involved *******s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The county has seen Obama reach out to the GOP. It's seen him invite them to his super bowl party and meet with their media brain trust in private dinners. They've heard him talk nice on stimulus and even change the bill only to collect 2-3 Republican votes for his troubles. Now they've seen him be rational standing up against the wing nut faction of the GOP who have attempted to shout down and control through intimidation the debate..... Now when he stuffs healthcare down their throats, he will legitamately be able to claim he had no choice.

Right now the public is getting inundated with the two opposite sides, Reps claiming they are not getting talked to enough or enough compromise, and Dems claiming they are attempting plenty of compromise. It's hard for the lay person to sort out.

I think what would be nice is if, at least, there was a more cohesive idea floated out - as far as I can tell, there isn't much of one (and this is what the article also complains about). I'm not sold on the need for him to say "I messed up" as Noonan says (not at all actually) but I think healthcare needs, at the least, serious thought and reform more than ideological wailing. It feels to me that we've gotten more of the latter than the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 million red blooded Americans couldn't afford to defend against Cancer if they got it, but even more would be perfectly willing to sacrifice them in order to maintain the status quo, for whatever reason they choose to believe in. Yeah, this countries full of such great people that love each other, more like a bunch of self involved *******s.

You know, solving that problem doesn't necessarily mean that we jump to government health care. Maybe it would be better to start with reforming the system to help figure out how to reign in costs of the actual care and the costs of insurance.

Furthermore, the article specifically talks about the lack of clarity on Obama's "plan" to this point, which I tend to agree with..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err her only criticism of the health care reform is that it uses phrases that normal people don't understand. I guess she finds it much easier to comprehend terms like "death panels" or "government takeover" or "aliens are among us". The remaining 50% of the article is about how Obama should apologize for something (sounds like he should apologize for trying and failing to reform the health care system?). What a crock of :pooh:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Peggy Noonan waxes nostalgic about the Clinton administration, but it isn't the 90s anymore and the Republicans don't seem to want to work with anyone. Obama knows that if it doesn't happen now, it probably won't happen this term, since the Dems are likely to lose their majority in the next voting cycle.

I also don't see backing off as a smart strategy, since that will just embolden the Republicans that being obstructionist is good.

Unfortunately, we may end up being the losers in all of this because we couldn't have a rational, intelligible debate on the subject, and it will be the Republican's fault for playing politics on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...