With a little love, and some tenderness
We’ll walk upon the water
We’ll rise above this mess
With a little peace, and some harmony
We’ll take the world together
We’ll take ‘em by the hand
That’s the opening verse to Hootie and the Blowfish’s breakthrough single “Hold My Hand.” I remember 1994 quite clearly. This unknown band from South Carolina came out of nowhere. Soon they were on constant rotation on the radio, VH1, and even ESPN. You couldn’t escape the Blowfish. At first, the ubiquitous presence of Hootie and the aforementioned Blowfish didn’t seem to bother anyone. In fact, we couldn’t get enough of them. They weren’t one-hit wonders. Their second single “Let Her Cry” was even better than “Hold My Hand.” Blowfish singer Darius Rucker (who will always hold a special place in my heart for this) has a great voice. The band’s third single was “Only Want to be With” and it was their biggest hit. The video featured celebrities and ESPN’s Sportscenter. It seemed like America would always love Hootie and the Blowfish. Their debut album, Cracked Rear View, went on to sell over 16 million copies, they won a Grammy for “Best New Artist,” and they appeared on MTV Unplugged.
The follow-up album Fairweather Johnson was a disappointment, but not because it was bad. The first single was a relative success. People were just tired of Hootie. The band broke one of the cardinal rules of Rock ‘n Roll, and of celebrity in general. Do not become overexposed. You have to leave the audience wanting more. If you give people something for free long enough they get tired of it, kind of like public housing and Katie Couric. Does this apply to politics? Well, we’re about to find out. President Obama could and may already have become the Hootie and the Blowfish of presidential politics. They share a few things in common…
Reference the opening verse to “Hold My Hand” I mentioned earlier. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to put those words in Obama’s mouth. In fact, if you close your eyes, empty your mind of all extraneous thoughts, and substitute the soothing and melodic voice of Hootie, or whatever that guy’s name is, with Obama’s teleprompting one, you’ll fine that it’s basically every speech Obama has ever given. It a) sounds great; b) promises peace and harmony; and, c) means practically nothing.
The Katie Couric reference above might seem strange, but I’m sorry, the very mention of her name cracks me up.
Next Tuesday Obama could save everyone a lot of time and just sing “Hold My Hand.” I’m sure the talking heads on MSNBC would call it the greatest speech in American history. At some point the American people will suffer Obama fatigue. People will get tired of seeing him all the time. The last time a president gave a speech before a joint session of Congress that wasn’t a State of the Union was two weeks after the attacks of September 11. What is the crisis that is causing Obama to give a speech? His presidency? Health care is an important issue, but so is the solvency of Social Security.
Obama is burning up the mystique of the White House. Since his inauguration he’s given three prime-time press conferences and a State of the Union address, let NBC and ABC rent the White House, bounced the first pitch at the All Star Game, submitted a bracket on ESPN, and appeared on the Tonight Show. In other words, the President has had a lot of air time to get his message out. At this rate it’s conceivable that the White House could have its own float at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade, a Christmas Special on all the networks, and for the President to replace Ryan Seacrest at Times Square for the New Year’s Eve festivities.
President Obama needs to pull back and leave the audience waiting for more. Otherwise he’ll end up doing commercials for Burger King.
The following headline from CNN caught my attention: “Obama considers major speech on health care, aide says.” How many “major speeches” has the President given so far? What has he said that’s remotely memorable? “Hope,” “change,” and “yes we can” might be memorable, but they’re not exactly full of substance. For the past two months the President has campaigned for health care. On September 9th he’s going to give a speech before Congress. During his campaign he’s continued to mislead the public about the health care plans on the table. What can the President possibly say at this point that’s going to change the debate?
This is the first true test of Obama’s young presidency. Will President Obama take a stand? Will he say something specific? Will he tell Congress what he wants? The two biggest achievements this year for the White House have been the stimulus package that turned into a colossal pork bill and the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor. Neither one of these were very popular with the American people. Americans are ready for sensible reform to health care, but the President seems opposed and aloof when it comes to debating real change.
Obama is ready to give a new speech on health care. This time he really means business.
During the campaign Obama promised to take on the special interests and stand up for the little guy, but here we are barely eight months into Obama’s presidency and he’s taken tort reform off the table. Obama doesn’t want to take on the trial lawyers in his own party because he’s just another ordinary politician who is more concerned with his party than with the American people. If you’ve anointed yourself as some kind of “different” politician and you fail to deliver it’s bad for business.
Then there’s the promise of bipartisanship that was a crucial part of the Obama Unicorn. I say Unicorn because it’s mythical creature that no one believes is real, kind of like my generation’s chance of receiving Social Security. Actually, there’s a better chance that Unicorns are real than the chance I ever receive a check for Social Security. With a super majority in both the House and the Senate one would think that demonizing the opposition wouldn’t be a priority. But apparently it is, and is part and parcel with this new era of change and hope that was supposed to change America’s bitter politics and gap the political divide forever in a land called Honah Lee:
Another administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity when discussing strategy, said the new phase was “driven in part by the actions of some in the GOP,” including Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. The official added the White House believes those actions indicate that these two key Republicans, who are part of a bipartisan group negotiating a health care bill, “are essentially walking away from the table.”
This isn’t news to me, but the Democrat definition of bipartisanship means shut up and agree with them. What else can be gathered from that quote above? What sane Republican (if there are any in Washington) would agree to any of the terrible ideas being thrown about in Congress? The sad reality is that the Congress will likely pass some kind of watered down compromise bill that won’t make the left happy, won’t help, and will make things worse. It won’t matter because, politically at least, Obama will have his “health care reform.” We’ve seen this before; it was called the Prescription Drug Bill passed by President Bush. It’s funny how much change looks the same.
Michael Tomasky has an op-ed in The Guardian lamenting the fate of the health care takeover being pushed by “progressives.” The article is full of generalizations, mischaracterizations, and historical inaccuracies. The piece is truly difficult to read. Tomasky’s aura of faux intellectualism is so strong he doesn’t have time to look at the details. Most liberals have this problem. It’s why Reagan said that “it’s not that our liberal friends are ignorant, they just know so much that isn’t so.” However naïve Tomasky is, he does have some self awareness.
What a change from just six to nine months ago. During that period, from the wake of Barack Obama’s victory through the first 100 days, liberal optimism was higher than it’s been in this country for 40 years. One could believe, on a good day, not only that America would pass healthcare reform and climate change bills (that’d be the easy part), but that Israelis and Palestinians and Iranians and Syrians and Indians and Pakistanis and North Koreans and you-name-it just might all wake up one day and text one another: you know, Obama’s win suddenly makes us aware of how silly we’ve been all these years. Let’s grow up and make peace.
There’s no doubt American liberals completely misread the tea leaves regarding the election. The unfortunate truth is liberals are just as naïve about health care. Unable to clearly deliver an argument about how this utopian program will ever work they’d rather complain about the opposition. At the prospect of the losing the debate Tomasky would rather complain about “a historic victory for the birthers and the gun-toters and the Hitler analogists.” Look down at the birthers all you want, and there’s plenty of reason to do so, but what can you say about someone who is well-educated like Tomasky who can’t even adequately explain how health care can work?
Maybe “well-educated” is a generalization. What can we say about an education system that continues to create people who are woefully ignorant about economics and history? Before we endorse changing one of the largest parts of our economy shouldn’t we have some evidence that it might work? Why should we trust people who don’t even have a firm grasp on history? Look at Tomasky’s insight about FDR:
Ditto with Franklin Roosevelt, to whom Obama is often unflatteringly compared. FDR, the comparers say, fought the right tooth and nail, took no prisoners and was unapologetically liberal, even leftwing by today’s standards. Many very important points are left out of this comparison. Roosevelt made lots of mistakes – the bill he’d intended as the landmark legislation of his first year, the national industrial recovery act, was an abysmal failure, eventually struck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court. Unlike Obama, he didn’t have to worry about Senate filibusters, which weren’t really invoked in those days but which are a constant threat today. And while the right wing he faced was real, it wasn’t nearly as well-financed and orchestrated as today’s version, which even has its own national disinformation “news” network.
According to Tomasky FDR was able to pass the New Deal because no one used filibusters, the opposition wasn’t well financed, and FOX News didn’t exist. Frankly, Tomasky should be embarrassed by that paragraph. He obviously has no idea about the history of the Great Depression. Four years of depression and super majorities in both the House and the Senate are the reason the New Deal passed. Furthermore Obama hasn’t faced a filibuster for any of his key agenda. Again, Tomasky displays his naivete in regard to history. He’s got all the people in the right period but all the facts wrong.
Despite all of his talents, FDR would not have been a match for FOX News.
Liberals like Tomasky are shadowboxers fighting an invisible enemy. The liberal’s true enemies in the health care debate are facts, and one of those is that we have no way to pay for health care reform. We can’t afford Medicare, the Prescription Drug Plan, or Social Security. In the grand scheme of things I don’t really care if liberals think that health care is a right. We can’t afford it, and until someone has a plan that’s worked somewhere else we should move forward with real reform.
This is one of those pictures that says a lot. I don’t think this was the photo op the White House wanted.
Recent Comments