March 20, 2010 3:42 PM

The End of Hope and Change

By
CBSNews
(The New Ledger)  Benjamin Domenech, a former speechwriter and political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, is managing editor of Health Care News.


President Barack Obama's final speech before this weekend's anticipated vote on health care legislation had the same soaring rhetoric he's been known for, those turns of phrase that sound awfully pretty unless you think about them too hard.

Obama's speeches are what a speechwriter I knew liked to call "cotton candy communication"-sticky sweet and airy, made for children, comforting to the listener as they hear, but melting away, instantly forgettable. Plus, ingest too much of it and you get sick as a dog.

There was one note in this speech, though, that stuck out by typifying Obama's views, encapsulating his approach to health care policy, and indicating a disturbing level of desperation in his young presidency.

"In just a few days," Obama said, referring to the Sunday roll call, "a century-long struggle will culminate in an historic vote."
Obama likes to cast things in terms of century-long battles. He did so in his State of the Union address, referring to a law considered half that age at most, which prompted a headshake from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. But what is prompting him to make this assertion regarding his health care legislation, which dramatically affects an arena of government policy that has not even existed for a hundred years?

There is no conceivable date he could be measuring from, unless he has a strong sense of irony not previously in evidence. Trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt would undoubtedly excoriate the idea of special interests setting the parameters of national reform, with support campaigns from unions and activist shell groups, PhRMA in the room during every significant negotiation, more than a hundred-million dollars in propagandistic ads for legislation which will protect the industry status quo, and the like.

The fact that Obama continues to spend such energy in support of legislation that all reputable independent data suggest will raise premium costs, increase the entitlement burden, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, and enforce a dramatic disincentive for success indicates that this is all about politics, not which policies actually work best for the American people.

Over the past week, in backroom conversations with members of Congress, Obama changed his negotiation tone from demanding to desperate. He told progressives that the outcome of the rest of his term depended on what happened on health care, and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus confided to Politico that Obama changed his position on this weekend's vote by saying "the fate of his presidency" rested on it.

It's not hard to see why the president would feel this way. The tidal wave of popularity he rode into office has crashed and withdrawn. This week Gallup found, for the first time, that more Americans disapprove of President Obama than approve - a shift made all the more jarring when you consider how little he has achieved in his short tenure in return for so much spent political capital.

Such crumbling popularity would give any politician pause, especially one who has spent most of his political career appearing before cheering crowds who proclaim trust, optimism, and hope for him. Obama's dedication to passing this spectacularly flawed and unpopular health care bill appears to be based on the assumption that the American people like a winner even if the victory comes at their expense.

Other presidents have made this mistake. Voters may not have memories as long as they once did, but they will remember who this brave new health care world belongs to, and the blame for it will be a palpable political factor in the decades to come.

As the dangerous outcomes of this plan become apparent, Obama may well come to regret this moment when he chose political expediency over what's right for the nation. When historians judge this presidency they may well point to this moment as signaling the end of Obama's cotton candy storyline of "the people vs. the powerful," the rhetoric that once drove to his side multitudes of people fed up with the ways of Washington, the lies, kickbacks, shady backroom deals, and lack of transparency.

Once, they trusted and hoped in his ability to achieve change. Now the American people know whose side he's on.
By Ben Domenech:
Reprinted with permission from The New Ledger.

News and Opinion of the day
Add a Comment See all 76 Comments
by msjb1 April 19, 2010 7:20 AM EDT
BY GOLLY GEE WHIZ obamasain has healthcare taken care of finally, now we can get down to telling the irainians some whoppers, you know BIG LIES, if we do half the job with the irainians as we did with healthcare in america they will relize they need healthcare more than their nukes
Reply to this comment
by marks6806 April 17, 2010 8:49 PM EDT
Let the Hope-a-Dopes follow him around and fight over the scaps of socialist welfare and tax credits while they still can. As for me, I will continue to pay more taxes - and in Novemebr I will vote with my wallet. We will purge the 'progressive disease' out of congress. The Master-Hope-a-Doper will follow a few years later. Then this great nation can 'move on' to a bright future.
Reply to this comment
by highwayrawberry123 April 17, 2010 6:25 AM EDT
Let's face it - Obama is a bust. I was the only one in my entire family who didn't vote for the guy, and the only reason my family voted for him was because McCain was either too old to them or was a Republican and Bush is a Republican. Not a one of them voted for Obama because of his values or what he said he could do for the country. I hear this was a common fact with many other people too.

Guess what, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nowhere near drawing down regardless of what the news might say. He actually spends more and puts us more in debt, actually surpassing the numbers that dummy Bush did (on a month by month comparsion scale). But there's one thing I support of his, and that'd the Healthcare Reform Bill. I don't support it for the fact that it'll help some people in the near term (not long term), I support it because it will be the main thing that does not get him re-elected next term. My guess is, he'll not even run for re-election, his support is gone. When he got the Reform bill passed, every one of his ever-shrinking number of followers bragged about his approval rating raising a staggering ONE PERCENT, but I don't think that is a number high enough for even the Annointed One to ride into a re-election campaign with.

He's a flash in the pan, whose not even half way into his term and already suffering from poor approval numbers. I've read numerous posts where his supporters said "He's accomplished more than Bush did", yet most of them fail to elaborate any further. And, come on, a monkey could've accomplished more than Bush so how about we compare Obama with other presidents of the past like Clinton? JFK? Regean? Obama doesn't stack up to any of them, nowhere near it. I'm not so sure he's even accomplished more than Bush quite frankly. Let's see:

Bush sent us into Afghanistan and let us kick the Taliban out of power (long overdue, should've happened long before 9-11). Bush then sent us into Iraq and let us topple a regime that had invaded another country before and, key point, after AWHILE AND YEARS of Bush (and Clinton) and UN asking, STILL refused to allow UN Inspectors access to certain areas of the country. A regime that also violated upteen UN Resolutions over a dozen years, I might add. WMD or not, I'm glad we kick the hell out of Saddam, and it needed to happen, PERIOD. Saddam was a unpredictable wildcard, wh0o had already invaded another country and killed scores of his own people in mass genocide, how were we supposed to know if he may or may not someday attack another country or one of our bases in the Middle East (after all, nobody though he'd have the balls to invade tiny Kuwait but he did)? The thing I'll never forgiven Bush for and hate him for is not having a exit plan once we were done. That failure has cost us many American lives and innocent civilian lives of Iraqis and Afghans.

Basically, when you peel away the layers of smooth talk and charm the president has, you wind up with something rotten. If he is better than Bush, it isn't by very much, and even so, that isn't saying very much is it? Let Obama have a world wide crisis, like another 9-11, or a Nuke Showdown with a super power like Russia (like JFK had to do), before we sing his praises to the high heavens for "accomplishing" more than lowly dufus Bush did. My senses tell me he'd fail miserbaly, for he hasn't got the volition or the testicles to stare someone in the eye and dare them to do blink when he needs to.
Reply to this comment
by Confidential416 April 16, 2010 1:10 PM EDT
I'm tired of all the whiners.... the President has done more in one year for average americans than Bush did in 8 - I'm proud to call him President!
Reply to this comment
by marks6806 April 17, 2010 8:54 PM EDT
Average Americans? You must be talking about the ones who don't pay income tax - they are lower middle class or below. Not really average but in fact, below average, and not paying their way. Taxpaying, working Americans will vote this fall and in 2012 to restore this great nation to a constitutional, democratic, capitolist-based economic powerhouse. No more socialism, please. If you like socialism and want socialism please emmmigrate to Venezuela, Coba, or one of the bankrupt EU states.
by AmazingGrce April 18, 2010 11:37 PM EDT
I gather that you are one of the non-tax paying Americans. The DEMs want to force those who are successful in their work to shoulder your tax burden. All those freebie programs you and the DEMS want - Of course you don't want to pay your share.

Time for a flat tax for everyone regardless of income level along with a National Sales Tax. That way ALL Americans contribute for the cost of these socialistic programs. THEN we'll see how popular Obama and Tax loving DEMs are.

A VAT system will only change the 'games' that businesses play. The only exemption for a National Sales tax would be on medical services/equipment. (No exemption for 'elective medical services such as plastic surgery)

Not you Obama lovers, he hasn't stepped forward with any such program because it prevents him and the Democratic party from making sweetheart deals with PACs or hiding his tax increase that he will have to use to pay for his new socialistic vision for the US.
by marks6806 April 10, 2010 4:18 PM EDT
I still recall messiah's state of the union adddress where he insulted our Supreme Court and said he would 'shift focus from Obamacare to jobs.' Then came the mad rush of lies, back-door deals and congresional tricks to somehow get it thru despite a clear 10% voter margin against it. Pelosi: 'we need to pass it so we can see what's in it..' Biden's 'big F' remark. Earmaks and jobs promised to congressmen the change votes and the "you need to support this or I will fail as prez." pleadings in Obamas office. Well now we know what we got. Higher taxes, businesses announcing layoff and writeoffs. Tax penalties for 'no-buy-option' people that are far cheaper than the cost of new higher premiums, and likely the last breath of a medicare system robbed of 1/2 trillion bucks.

If this is 'historic health care reform' God help us with whatever he has next on the agenda. When this nation loses it's AAA bond rating and the world looses interest in our T-bills unless we mark them up to 10% and we have Venezuelan-like inflation, we we will have nothing left but a 2nd-rate socialist has-been. Wake-up you lefties! It may not be too late!!!
Reply to this comment
by RobAla April 8, 2010 6:56 AM EDT
Here is the result of the "fine print" on the health care bill.

The working poor, who had no health care insurance, will be covered in the future. This is good, but consider the following:

The middle class will see:
1) Their state and federal taxes go up ? including Medicare taxes
2) Their private insurance premiums go up

Seniors will see:
1) $500 billion less in Medicare
2) Fewer doctors willing to accept Medicare patients

States will see:
1) Federal government expansion of Medicaid ? adding financial burden on the states
2) This action forces the states to greatly raise taxes on citizens of each state

Businesses will see:
1) Federal mandates which force them to provide insurance ? adding financial burdens
2) This action will cause many to have to lay off more workers

The majority of Americans:
1) Asked for reform on a few specific areas ? but will see health care turned upside down
2) Have been ignored, after stating in polls that they do not want this bill

The federal government will see:
1) Itself much more empowered over individuals and businesses
2) Additional deficit spending after the CBO scores the impact of the reconciliation bill

Nobody ever really believed that this bill would be deficit neutral. Now Volker is talking about an additional value added tax to be imposed on the American people - on top of all the new taxes and fees embedded i this horrible bill. The bill is a disaster in the making.

Americans were asking Washington to help bring down the cost of health care, but instead Washington took this as an opportunity to fatten itself at our expense. This bill will cause premiums to go up dramatically, and the higher taxes will result in our standard of living going down. Washington turned a deaf ear to the majority of Americans, and we will have an opportunity to set things straight come November.
Reply to this comment
by Continental_Soldier April 7, 2010 7:27 AM EDT
NETWORK EVENING NEWS DOWN -14% IN YEAR; AUDIENCE VANISH

WEEK MARCH 29, 2010
NBC 7,750,000
ABC 7,070,000
CBS 5,160,000

WEEK MARCH 30, 2009
NBC 8,740,000
ABC 7,950,000
CBS: 5,970,000
Reply to this comment
by gjconely April 15, 2010 2:44 PM EDT
It must be that Fox News paying them all off or something.
by marks6806 April 17, 2010 8:46 PM EDT
These are no longer 'mainstream media' they are now "DINOSAUR MEDIA" wave goodbye.
by joemarkowitz April 6, 2010 5:42 PM EDT
The century long battle for health insurance refers to a plank in Teddy Roosevelt's presidential campaign of 1912 proposing health insurance. The century long precedent that Obama and the Court's dissenters were referring to is the Tillman Act of 1907 that barred contributions by corporations to political candidates. So the Court overruled more than a century of understanding that corporations may be treated differently from actual human beings in campaign finance law. So neither one of these century references was rhetoric. Both were based on fact.
Reply to this comment
by msjb1 April 19, 2010 7:25 AM EDT
teddy would have got healthcare in if would have told lies like these guys, but i forgot nancy and harry was not around then i guess they are not that old after all
by ladyhawk71 April 5, 2010 2:13 PM EDT
Someone should have the foresite to remind the GOP and the dissenting DEMS, that the American public is MANDATED to have automobile insurance if they drive; homeowners insurance if they have own a home; and renters insurance if they rent. What's the big deal about mandating health insurance? And Congress (every mother's son and daughter of them) have a public option health care plan; so if they disagreed with enacting the public option they ought to be dropped immediately from their cadillac medicare plan.
Reply to this comment
by Empire-George- April 6, 2010 1:59 PM EDT
by ladyhawk71 April 5, 2010 2:13 PM EDT

the American public is MANDATED to have automobile insurance if they drive;
_______________

Read your own words...."IF THEY DRIVE".....however, they are madating that we purchase something from another citizen..."IF WE JUST LIVE"


You don't know the difference between, a priviledge like driving, nobody is being forced to drive and being forced to purchase insurance, just for the sake of being alive.....what's the big deal ? it's a huge deal, and the IRS fining and witholding tax refunds, levying fines and seizing anything for not purchasing what they demand you purchase.....Homeowners insurance IS NOT mandatory.....the only reason home insurance is mandatory, is if someone else (the Bank) actually owns the home by holding the mortgage.....so you are wrong on many points and should really re-consider your positions on forcing people to do what the government dictates.....WE TELL THE GOVERNMENT what to do, NOT THEM !!!
by JimNear60 April 2, 2010 6:26 PM EDT
Well, Obama's popularity took a massive 1% jump when health care was enacted. 1% - wow - that's stunning. That was after all the speeches and hoopla. Then, how unfortunate, people got to READ the law. Oh, not so good!! How much not so good? Well, Obama's approval rating has fallen - just a week later - to it's lowest level ever at just 44%, AND his disapproval rating on health care - his magnum opus - is 55%. That's disapproval - bad - not good - more than half the people have a definite opinion and it's BAD. So Obamites can stick their head in the sand and sarcastically laugh off commentaries like this one, but the inconvenient truth is that Obama may be a bust. And as for his speeches, really, if you listen to more than two or three of them, you can mimick them - they all have the same tone - the same cadence - the same vague rhetoric - hard for anyone to attack (in the same way that it's hard to nail jello to a wall).
Reply to this comment
See all 76 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook