by Mark Silva
This afternoon, President Barack Obama will walk onto a TV set in New York for a taping of the Late Show with David Letterman, the first appearance of a sitting president on Letterman's late-night show and the sixth for Obama personally.
What this has to do with enacting the most sweeping changes in health care since the government created Medicare may not be immediately clear to any audience, but following the president's five-network sweep of the Sunday morning news shows it will be chalked up as another chapter in a media battle to recapture lost ground in a health-care debate that is far from finished.
The president allows that he is having trouble sometimes "breaking through'' to the public with his health-care message -- though critics say that's not the problem; it's what he's peddling that's the problem.
"Actually, he has broken through. People don't like what he is selling,'' Republican consultant Alex Castellanos tells the Tribune Washington bureau. "This is not a communications problem. In the advertising world, what if this is not a marketing problem, what if this a product problem?''
There are some who say Obama should have started pushing a lot earlier, and with a lot more specifics. Yet despite an old lesson learned again the hard way -- with the president enabling his critics to label his plans as "death panels'' and the like before he could adequately refute their claims -- one seasoned observer of congressional affairs suggests not counting Obama out yet.
"I do think they made a mistake in (the spring) in not having the president out there... defininig health care,'' Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, tells the Tribune bureau. "If he had taken up the mantra... 'no more having your insurance cancelled, no more worrying that yuou can't leave your job even if you want to,' and framed that appeal to even people who have insurance, it would have captured a significant amount of attention.
"To a degree what he has been doing is playing catchup,'' Ornstein says. "It's difficult to catch up.''
That's the rule that Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president and a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, violated when he allowed the "Swift-boaters'' to denigrate his service before adequately responding to their campaign against him.
"There is the Kerry Principle, which is basically: No charge is too outlandish to ignore,'' Ornstein says. "If you believe, no matter what it is, that nobody could possibly believe this, you are headed for disaster....''
For all that, Ornstein suggests, the White House may be a lot closer to obtaining health care legislation than critics ready to write the effort off believe it is.
"I actually think they are in reasonably good shape,'' he says. "They do have a substantive problem, which is, more than anything, making the numbers add up.... As long as they can tweak this.... so that it can really create a situation where a large number of middle class people are not put in an untenable situation... As long as you can tweak it to have some competition without a public plan, which I think is doable with a coop... I think they've got the makings of a bill that can get votes in the Senate....
"I think they are not in terrible shape at this point,'' Ornstein says. "I think we'll see a few more instances where the patient is declared dead''' before the bill is passed, "which is not unusuual....
"Part of it is a sense that people believed he was too passive in this process,'' Ornstein says, suggesting that in fact it was the proper course to let Congress find a path toward the legislation that the president wants. "There is always a risk of over-exposure,'' he says, though he doesn't think Obama was getting that Sunday.
All of which suggests that the president may have cause to sit back and enjoy his appearance on Letterman tonight. Watch for the reviews here in the Swamp.
Comments
As pathetic as that rule may be, the Kerry Rule, it is only one of a multitude of " rules " that have come to undermine our democracy !! That an opponent of any idea can hire a gang of nay-sayers, spread a lie, a distortion and ask that, that be considered factual in debating an issue, is an assault upon our freedoms. That lies and falsehoods have gained an equal footing in a debate, with accurate, matter-of-fact dialogue is ridiculous!! Why, it is Republican-Libertarian, in nature and we all know where that rabbit-hole leads !! Iraq, anyone !!? Scams on Wall Street, anyone !!? Get out that electronic microscope, for that fine print, on that mortgage, anyone !!? Saxby Chambliss, anyone !!?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | September 21, 2009 8:09 AM
The real problem Obama has in "selling" reform is:
denial.
Folk just want to put the whole disagreeable subject of catastrophic or chronic illness out of their minds and watch football or Oprah instead.
It's only when they get hit with a stroke or cancer or diabetes that they confront how bad, expensive, inefficient, the American "health care delivery" system really is.
By then, it's too late...
When was the last time you wrote your health insurance co. telling you how happy you were with their service?
Posted by: ornery | September 21, 2009 8:18 AM
With a $9,000,000,000,000 projected deficit over the next ten years, can we afford to add another gov't run social program that will add to this deficit?
I have challenged people in here to name a gov't run social program in here that meets the customers' needs and has come in lower than the original budget. So far no takers. Step up libs.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 8:31 AM
Aren't you getting tired of " I gotcha ", " Terry "? Bush&Cheney proved your point 8 1/2 years ago, with their incompetence and malfeasance !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | September 21, 2009 9:26 AM
Sure he will put out more misleading statements, with his goal to be the Dictator of the World.
Posted by: Inky | September 21, 2009 9:33 AM
Well things are not as easy as made out to be.What would we do right now,what plan right now would to a great extent influence where we go from here.
Posted by: Harrison | September 21, 2009 9:39 AM
Excellent question Terry but it's kind of like asking the question, "Do you still beat your kids?"
The premise of your question is that government's sole responsibility is to stay out of the way of private enterprise and allow the market to self regulate. Just as the second question's premise is the person you are asking beats their children.
No, ther probably isn't a truely efficent and cost saving government program but that doesn't proclude the necessity of government social programs. There are those little phrases "promote the general Welfare" and "insure domestic tranquility" in the US Constitution that always jump up and bite the Libetarian / Conservative types in the you know where.
It's a shame the conservatives of the Republican party, who espouse the need to adhere to judeo-chrstian principles and philosophies, are usually the very last to remmber anyone but themselves when it comes to questions of social justice or common morality.
By the way, do you still beat your kids?
Posted by: kg123 | September 21, 2009 9:53 AM
Like we need another reason not to watch letterman.
I'm amazed that letterman is still on at all, they should just run reruns of Hogan's Hero's and it'd still be funnier than letterman, who stopped being funny around 1980!
Posted by: moreofthesame | September 21, 2009 10:18 AM
FITZ, Ornery,
On behalf of the Democratic-Socialist party, tell me a successful gov't run social program that has come in under budget.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 10:31 AM
Well, given the federal dollars involved, I would say getting rid of the Bush&Cheney fringe, was as good as any government funded program, that succeeded !! Gotch Ya !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | September 21, 2009 11:00 AM
Now he is telling us a gov't. mandated fee for healthcare or fine or whatever obfuscating Obamaspeak he has come up with, is not a tax. Or that all these new "fees" on insurance companies or "fees" on high-value healthplans (like, you know, the union plans of the American "workers" he so dearly loves have... bend over union dudes the bus is coming) do not constitute a tax hike for the middle class! Well, I am just be befuddled! And could anyone explain, that for the last 2 years, Obama has been harping about those 46 to 47 million Americans who lack health insurance and since last week, during the big prime-time lecture to Congress, Obama tells us it is now 30 million (whew, glad he cleared that up!). But, my big question is? Where did 16 or 17 million Americans go??? Were they beamed up? Must have gone somewhere (please liberals he has misplaced millions of Americans, contact the ACLU!) or Obama's been, what is the word here, oh yea, misleading with the figures.. But for 2 years? Guess that just gives one pause, to consider just what other facts he been "misleading" or using disingenuous Obamaspeak details to explain his plan (has anyone seen his plan? me neither!). So due you think I might not believe his rhetoric or the WH propaganda? Now do you get the picture why his healthcare plan is not supported by the great majority of American folks and is tanking, besides the facts and the math (the details, Mr Prez) just do not add up. Whatever, my daddy could never sell cow dung either. Have a nice day, Mark, "zpplaining" that one for Obama and us Swampers.
Posted by: bubba Porter | September 21, 2009 11:06 AM
FITZ,
You make no sense. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are not in charge. This all on BO and Foot-in-the Mouth Biden. From your two responses, I'll take it as a no to the question - you can't name one gov't program that meets the customers' needs and has come in under its original budget.
KGB,
The question is not like "do you still beat your kids?" It's a simple question - name a gov't run social program that meets its customers' needs and has come in under budget. Let's try Medicare. Seniors seem pretty happy with the program as far as services go - so it meets their needs. But has it come in under the gov'ts original cost estimate? Not even close. The medicare tax rate has increased four-fold and the salary cap has gone from an original first $6600 of one's salary as compared to today's unlimited salary cap.
When BO feeds America the line that he won't sign a bill that adds a single dime to the deficit, don't believe him since gov't has no track record of running a program like this under budget.
Can this country afford to add to a $9,000,000,000,000 projected deficit?
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 11:23 AM
Terry,
So you're problem isn't with Obama, it's with the government in general? I find your argument disengeneous unless you are professing anarchy. Are you an anarchist?
The question stands, do you still beat your kids? A second question would be, do you think this trait of yours may be genetic because it's obvious someone beat the common sense and decency out of you somewhere along the line.
Posted by: kg123 | September 21, 2009 11:44 AM
Isn't public financing of the presidential election, a federal program? You just don't get it, do you, Limpbag's echo. Go hold Rushie's hand and seek his guidance !! Then, find another silly question, with which you can bother us, adults !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | September 21, 2009 12:18 PM
FITZ,
Public financing of elections is a federal program - and it is a failure.
Keep trying while you are crying over Blago's unjust treatment.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 12:50 PM
On behalf of the Democratic-Socialist party, tell me a successful gov't run social program that has come in under budget.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 10:31 AM
What do you have against our Armed Forces?
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2009 1:32 PM
BillyR,
I never realized that our Armed Forces were a social program. What do you have against reading?
KGB,
My questions does not resemble the "Do You Still Beat your Kids Arguement".
My problem is with gov't in places it shouldn't be - health care is one of those places. And, in the places it s/b such as national defense and infrastructure - I hate waste.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 4:25 PM
kg, you couldn't have screwed up the "beat your kids" question any more if you tried. Contrary to that example, by responding to Terry's question with a specific government program, you would not be admitting any underlying premise, but rather would be refuting his (e.g., that government programs are inefficient). You won't even try.
----
PS - As for your last post, being against wasteful/inefficient government spending makes one an anarchist? Do those dots really connect in your head?
Posted by: Herbie H. | September 21, 2009 10:32 PM