Refusing to start from scratch and work on a true bipartisan bill, Obama thinks by stacking the deck and starting with the Senate's version of Obamacare as his "opening bid", the political show will make up for and somehow make people forget the backroom deals, the bribes for votes and the fact that there is absolutely no bipartisan support for the bills as they are written.
Written by Democrats, voted on by only Democrats and special deals and favors added in for Democrats to get their votes.
That is Obama's opening bid.
Headlines today are inundated with Obamacare, so a nice variety of reading choices for you to choose from.
Keep in mind that 56 percent of voters, in Rasmussen's latest survey, oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats and think that Congress should focus instead on smaller bills that address problems individually rather than a comprehensive plan.
Robert Gibbs: Public Option Via Reconciliation Can’t Pass Congress
Health care: Dems just don't have the votes
Hoyer: Comprehensive health bill may be no go
Scott Brown rejects Obama plan as ‘nuclear option’ that will increase taxes.
Huffpo with "Gibbs: The Public Plan Doesn't Have The Votes"
No detail too small for summit optics
Yes, it is all about the "show", the theater, the props and the appearances, while both Democrats and Republicans admit.... it isn't going to change anything.
Ruth Marcus at Wapo with a must read piece titled "Obama's continued audaciousness on health reform could backfire"
She concludes:
Maybe the president can pull this off. My worry is that going for broke and failing will leave no time or appetite for a fallback, scaled-down plan. And the moment to do something on health care -- not everything, but something significant -- will have evaporated, once again.
So, why, when the majority of Americans are opposed to Obamacare in any of it's present forms and when the House possibly doesn't even have the votes to pass it and the Senate might not even be able to get the 51 votes needed for reconciliation, has Obama doubled down instead of truly trying to start from scratch and make this a bipartisan bill by scaling back and focusing on the points everyone can agree on?
Hot Air presents a couple theories:
Why would Obama do a big public rollout of a bill before he’s even sure that it can pass the House? One possibility is Keith Hennessey’s “exit strategy” theory: The point isn’t to produce a bill that can pass, merely a bill that can be presented as a serious effort in preparation for blaming the GOP when it inevitably goes down in flame in the House. Another theory: Maybe the comprehensive bill is meant to be a red herring, so that Obama can turn around after the summit and announce that he’s decided to support a much smaller bill instead. An ostentatious display of scaling down would make him look reasonable and moderate (and more fiscally conservative than usual), and it’d have a much better chance of passing the House. That’s also my theory, essentially, about the recent nonsense over the public option. If the Dems pound the table about it and then give up on it — ostensibly to placate Republicans — they’ll look “bipartisan” and eager to compromise, which may help them marginally in November.
This has the feel of a "last stand" type of mentality and those that stick with Obama, Reid and Pelosi, may very well find themselves job hunting in November.
.
