home

The Counter

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:35:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sam Stein writes:

The White House and allied Democrats are ramping up efforts to make belligerent anti-Obama town hall crowds -- and the media outlets that feed their resentment -- the face of opposition to the president's health care agenda, aides tell the Huffington Post.

Not a bad idea. It is the White House that can do this too. Hell, link them to the birthers. Here is the real question though - how do you treat the Media on this one? I have always been one who thinks that mau-mau-ing them always works.

Update - Here is Gibbs executing the strategy.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | ABC: Gore Asked Clinton To Go To North Korea; Kim "Pardons" Journalists >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Counter | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    But what about (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:52:04 PM EST
    single payer activits?  Should Obama smear them too?

    Is the goal for Obama to "win" or to pass good health care reform?  Just curious.

    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    what this is referring to. Is there smearing of single payer advocates going on by the Obama Administration?

    To be honest, I doubt he has given them a second thought. Which is a different problem entirely.

    Parent

    Of course there is. (none / 0) (#8)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Ever since the GE campaign when he smeared single payer as extreme, likening it to the equivalent on the left to what the wingnuts are saying on the right.

    I just don't understand the jubilation at framing the irrelevant minority of Republicans as the enemy.  72% of Americans want a government run healthcare option that includes everyone.  The Obama administration opposes such a plan.  The framing they are coming up with might give the Obama administration a "win" but it won't lead to passage of good healthcare reform.

    Parent

    Did not register for me (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    And frankly, single payer advocates should relish in being addressed at all.

    Again, I think the issue is not even being part of the conversation. And if it isn't, then single payer advocates stink at advocacy.

    Parent

    So, you aren't concerned (none / 0) (#15)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    about the actual details of what ends up in the bill.  Is that what you're saying?

    Parent
    Um no (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    Try reading it again.

    Seems like you are not that interested  in it.

    Parent

    Well, your response (none / 0) (#20)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    to my noting that a majority of people in this country favor a system providing the option for government run healthcare to everyone who wants it and that this is opposed by Obama and Congressional leadership is something about it being a good thing that Obama smears single payer health.  Doesn't make sense to me.

    Parent
    Your comment (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:15:05 PM EST
    does not make sense to me.

    It seems utterly unrelated to anything I have actually written.

    Parent

    Sigh. (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:22:50 PM EST
    My point is that I think, from the left, that turning this into a battle between Obama and crazy wignuts in the right is not a good idea if the goal is to get a good healthcare bill passed.  This is because Obama can then frame the bad bills currently in circulation as good in comparison to the what the wingnuts are saying.  This may help Obama "win" but it won't bring out good healthcare reform.

    Instead of smearing those on the right (who are irrelevant) and on the left, I would think that people who want good healthcare reform would want to make Obama and the congressional leadership defend their bill.  That they can't do that on the merits should be a sign that maybe their bill ain't so great.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    I bow to thee.

    Very good.

    Parent

    Great (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    If you write a post at your blog to that effect, I may link to it and blog about it.

    But it has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.

    Parent

    Ok then. (none / 0) (#34)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    My eyes are telling you wrote that the Obama administration wants to make "belligerent anti-Obama town hall crowds" the face of opposition to his health care agenda, and that you think this is "not a bad idea".

    I was pointing out why, IMO, it is not a good thing.

    If that's what you call NOTHING, then so be it.  I guess I see it differently.

    Parent

    Now wait a minute (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:34:41 PM EST
    You just spend a lot of comments telling me Obama was smearing single payer advocates. And now you change that tune.

    Your last comment is interesting but after a string of attacks on my view that Obama is not targetting single payer advocates with this approach, you change gears and say that the problem is - wait for it - Obama is not addressing the arguments of single payer advocates.

    It would help if we could maintain a coherent line of argument here.

    Parent

    It is possible to alternate (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    between smearing and ignoring.  One does not preclude the other.  I think Obama's treatment of single payer is a good example of that.

    I mean, Obama has called singler payer unamerican (or not a "uniquely American solution" in his turn of phrase) and extreme.  Are you saying that isn't smearing? And not bringing singer payer views into the working groups that crafted the current bills is ignroring.  

    My point generally, however, is that it is not a good idea, this strategy of smearing, whether it be smears of the left or of the right, if the result, as it currently stands, is a bad healthcare bill.  If you are going to have townhall meetings, then try to defend your bill on the merits.  Again, I think at this point they aren't choosing that strategy because there isn't much to defend.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    I think your general point is better one - to wit, to make this solely a battle between Obama and the extreme Right is not necessarily good for health care reform.

    Where I take issue is where you abandon this thesis - to wit, that this is Obama against Single Payer Advocates.

    Single Payer Advocates should be so lucky. And the country should be so lucky.

    Parent

    You should have been an english teacher (none / 0) (#43)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    I mean that positively.

    Parent
    Maybe I'm wrong (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    But I don't think this is about framing an irrelevant minority as the enemy.  It is about having to deal with the media created credibility that some of the "opposition" has been granted.  The media gave birthers huge swathes of airtime as if they were bringing up honest concerns instead of B.S. and lies.  The media has done this with the healthcare debate as well.  They give airtime to people who claim to be spouting facts that are often made up and they allow it over and over and over again....it's so bad anymore that the more looney your views the more they want you on.  You remember Joe the Plumber and then discovering who and what Joe the Plumber was really about?  It's time to meet the antihealthcare reformers and discover who they really are in real life and what they are about.

    Parent
    Well, that is all true, (none / 0) (#24)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:16:21 PM EST
    of course.  But the Obama administration and the Congressional leadership is also spreading misinformation.  The pitch is to imply that the public option will be available to everyone when there are very specific firewalls against that.  The pitch is to imply that reductions in medicare funding will not effect quality of care when it will.  And it goes on and on.

    So while the media, of course, stinks, I don't think there should be jubilition about the idea of masking a bad healthcare bill with cries of "look over there, crazy wingnuts!"

    Parent

    I note your concerns (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:32:53 PM EST
    and I can't tell you that that won't happen.  Progressive Democrats are fighting again now though for what the people need.  The Blue Dogs got riled and brought everything to a stand still.  Now the Progressives are pushing back.  I intend to keep the pressure on all I can and have committed to writing a diary at the Orange Satan about Tricare, and how that is single payer and magically the government is able to administer that with a great degree of success and no bankruptcy :)

    Parent
    I think the opposite (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    To be honest, I doubt he has given them a second thought.

    I think he has given them (us) considerable thought.  I think it has taken concerted effort and will to continue to ignore us.  Especially when activists keep cropping up in the most inconvenient settings.  But the ignoring seems to be working for him better than his initial attempt at labelling single-payer as extreme.  I'll say this:  when he wants something, he seems to go with what works.

    I just wish he wanted what I wanted.  At least one thing.  Out of so many, I would like to find one thing where he is clearly, unequivocally  on the same side I am.  In his actions, as well as his words.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    We disagree then.

    Parent
    Not the first time :) (none / 0) (#29)
    by sj on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    or the last.

    Parent
    Obama's acknowledged in the past (none / 0) (#47)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:38:25 PM EST
    that single-payer is the best system. And it is. And I'm glad people are out there fighting for it.

    At this point though, it would just be impossible to get passed. You saw how razor thin the margins of passage were on the current bills when they went through their respective committees.

    You might disagree, but I'm certainly of the opinion that a bill with a strong public option is certainly better than nothing.

    Parent

    I don't necessarily disagree. (none / 0) (#52)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 05:02:51 PM EST
    But, the bill that passed through the house committees does not have a strong public option.

    Parent
    I don't know if thats gonna work.... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    Pitting the face of Obama against the face of Joe and Jane Townhall in regards to healthcare might not work out so well for Obama or his plans for healthcare.  

    Random Americans getting beligerent with elected officials have more credibility with random Americans than Obama and The Czars. That lady who went off the other day is a cult hero right now to more Americans than we would care to admit.  Sh*t even I can't help but like her a little...I'd love her if her rant was a little more original and less right-wing talking points.

    Ummmm.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    random??  
    Dick Army's obnoxious lobbyists putting out e-mails instruct people who 'need to feel superior and entitled" are random how?

    Parent
    Perception is reality... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    I don't know if that lady was a plant or not...I think it is safe to say the perception of her is random concerned American, be it right or wrong.

    Parent
    This is what I was ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:16:16 PM EST
    thinking.

    I also think it could turn off the libertarian (small "l") independents.  Who can be a fairly reliable ally with the left against big business.  

    But they're not so keen to ally with a government which is picking on private citizens speaking up.

    Parent

    It would turn me off.... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    painting the birthers as a bunch of loons is one thing, painting critics of the healthcare proposals as loons is quite another...the critics of the healthcare proposals can and do make valid points, the birthers not so much:)

    Parent
    And I think you roughly ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:31:48 PM EST
    belong to the group I'm describing.  At least on many key issues.

    The Dems needs the Kdogs of this world on its side.

    Parent

    You've got me pegged... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    the Dems have mad work to do and mad policy revisions to make to get me on board...but I think they think big business is a better ally.

    I can't and won't cut a candidate a check like the insurance company can and does.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:42:56 PM EST
    If people who claim Obama is the anti-christ, wasn't born here, is the same a hitler are associated with the effort to kill reform, that's probably good for folks who support reform.  Normal people don't want to be associated with that kind of rhetoric.

    Parent
    Good job Gibbs (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:06:48 PM EST
    I love it when they get right to the point without talking around it. He could have mentioned Dick Armey's group by name, but I can't remember it either (probably some combnation of the words American and People and Freedom). Maybe next time he will.

    This kind of fight would be necessary regardless of the health care plan in consideration. The protesters from Armey's group do not care one whit about the details of the policy.

    Well (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    The mau-mau approach certainly seemed to work when Crowley told them to shut up. They ate it up and became fawning sycophants.

    Works for everybody (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    The Media are utterly spineless.

    BTW, for those unfamiliar with mau mauing.

    Parent

    Thought it had to do with (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    this

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:05:39 PM EST


    Parent
    I like this one better (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    Link.

    Parent
    I love ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    Stewie at the end.

    Parent
    Is the Drudge website (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    where the protestors are organizing from?  

    According to piece (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    on Rachel Maddow last night, the protests are part of an organized attempt to shut down any pro-healthcare discussion at town meetings across the country sponsored by none other than one or more lobbying groups, at least one of which may be tied to Dick Armey and supported by the insurance industry.  That's my best recollection.

    I think this organized effort is far more dangerous than anyone seems to think, and, IMO, framing the effort as something to discredit the right is missing the point.  The issues, to me, are:  Should a lobbying group, with a private, corporate agenda, be allowed to infiltrate town halls where elected representatives intend to hear from their rightful constituents?  
    And, are we going to allow them to disrupt proper communications between Congressional representatives and their constitutents on this important issue -- or any issue?

    I think research has to be done to support the right of members of Congress to have disrupters not representing themselves but corporate interests removed from the meetings if they are disruptive.  And, I would frame them not primarily as representing right wingers who oppose healthcare, but the insurance or whatever corporate interests they represent who oppose enactment of effective healthcare reform for their own financial benefit -- this is where the public is now -- angry at vested interests interfering with legislation that will help them.

    Sorry for sounding off, but I think that if all the Admin/Dems do is try to frame the disrupters as right-wingers against reform, they will be taking the easy way out and allowing private interests to disrupt legitimate public discourse. And, as one poster suggested above, we will be spending our time addressing the disrupters rather than communicating about the elements of effective & affordable health care.

    Parent

    Never apologize to me for sounding off (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    Thank you for the input because I'm geniunely interested in what "the driving force" is behind these guys.  I learned a lot while protesting.  When we were in Crawford TX the counterprotest couldn't be bothered to stay for longer than an hour.  They had lives worth living you see.  They brought their own film crews.  They provided footage of themselves "protesting", but they had to leave shortly afterwards.  That part never made it on CNN.  The Presidents friend had a BBQ down the road attempting to "attract" counterprotesters but it was really friggin hot that day.  Of course if your son died in a firefight in Baghdad and you really did want someone to explain to you what the "Noble Cause" was you found the time and the energy to stand in the heat for days and days and you would eat dirt if you had to.  After that experience and "protest" in Florida during the recount....I've learned a bit about protest and to ask what the force behind the "protest" is.  When you protest it takes time and energy....where is the reward for these people.  I suspected there had to be some sort of big business "funding" the antireform protest.

    Parent
    Linking them to the birthers (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:47:47 PM EST
    Does seem like a really good idea. As for the media. . . that's a tough one. But tying the crazies together could be a masterstroke. Same reason ANSWER rallies are useless.  

    It is often difficult to "put a face" on (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    the side of this debate that defends the status quo.  If this is indeed such a face let's see it and meet it in the flesh.  I wonder how the insurance companies are going to shut these "defenders" down.  Showing us the faces and hearing the voices of those defending the sickening and continued death dealing of our nation can't end up being beneficial to their goals.

    The insurance (none / 0) (#9)
    by dk on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    companies by and large support Obama's plan.  So, on this both the Republicans and the Democratic leadership are status quo.

    Parent
    Most of the insurance industry ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    will just chuckle.  Knowing they are not, and never were going to be, the target.  And knowing they will win in the end.

    The "reform" legislation, in any of the forms I've seen, tightens their hold.  And ties them inextricably to the matrix of society for another generation ... at least.

    Parent

    The problem is when (none / 0) (#44)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:15:53 PM EST
    you see stories like this out of Single Payer heaven: Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

    BTW, BTD, the idea of linkage is funny.  I always figured the birthers where the ones on the left

    Oops (none / 0) (#45)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:16:56 PM EST
    talking about Trig.

    Parent
    I like this link better (none / 0) (#49)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:52:07 PM EST
    With a month for these types of stories to come out it won't matter how clever Team Obama is.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#51)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:14:11 PM EST
    We had friends visiting this weekend from France.  They like universal health care but there are things about it that they hate.  For instance, both of them wear glasses and the Dad needs bifocals.  In France the wait to see an eye doctor for an exam and new prescription is 9 months.  In the meantime, he can no longer read menus or newspapers.  His wife has to read everything to him.  I just cannot imagine Americans putting up with that.  Surely we could better than that.

    Parent
    It will be hard for Team Obama (none / 0) (#48)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    to make "plants" the enemy with the media when they routinely do the same thing to get their point across.

    Sometimes playing 11 dimensional chess comes back to bite you.

    Are you saying their argument should be "Our planted spokespeople in town halls are more reliable then their planted protesters". ?

    I disagree (none / 0) (#50)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    Gibbs sounds rather silly.   This will simply infuriate further those folks who don't want to see their taxes raised to pay for folks who aren't paying for their insurance just like they were angry about having to help pay their neighbor's mortgage and subsidize his new car, when they don't have any extra money to buy a used car, much less a new car, even with government help.  Lots of people are just sick of handouts that they aren't getting.  Plus the stimulus package didn't work to get them a job, or their kids jobs or anyone they know jobs.  They just want jobs, not all this other stuff going to folks they don't even know.  That's how they see it.  

    On top of that, my older friends are very scared about the medicare cuts.  I know two people in their 70's, and one who is 85 they're going to anyplace where their Congressman is going to speak.  They want elected officials to know they're scared and that they don't want medicare cut to pay for someone else's insurance.  Maybe that's selfish, but they're poor, and they're scared. Lots of people out here are just plain frightened, for themselves, for their kids without jobs, for their grandkids without jobs.  They also worry that if their kids do get jobs they'll have to pay off government debt for the rest of their lives.  People are hurting and angry.  

    That's how they feel and that's why they show up at town hall meetings.  They are certainly not organized by insurance companies.  Heck, they aren't even organized, they want their Congressman and Senators to know that they are scared and that they need help, help that they aren't getting.  

    Gibbs is talking about these people (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 06:05:47 PM EST
    When even Jon Stewart can spell out the media spin cycle, the White House would look pretty stupid ignoring it.

    Parent
    The Counter | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment