markpkessinger

In the main, this is a terrific editorial. But must take serious issue with the following paragraph:

Obama’s most noteworthy achievement, passage of his signature Affordable Care Act, also proved, in its timing, his greatest blunder. The set of comprehensive health insurance reforms aimed at extending health care coverage to all Americans was signed 14 months into his term after a ferocious fight in Congress that sapped the new president’s political capital and destroyed any chance for bipartisan cooperation on the shredded economy..

The only thing that stood in the way of bipartisan cooperation before, during and after the health care reform battle was the willful refusal by Republicans to cooperate with this President on any legislation at all, even when the President was proposing things Republicans themselves had long been on record as supporting.

It is beyond disingenuous to suggest that, if only the President had not insisted on pursuing health care reform, then a real possibility would have existed for bipartisan cooperation on other issues. The suggestion, by extension, that the President caused the extreme partisanship by his decision to press for health care legislation (legislation which was, I might add, modeled on a plan penned by the conservative Heritage Foundation), is either a delusion or it is dishonest. As has been revealed by Robert Draper in his new book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives", the die was cast on January 20, 2009 for a strategy of total noncooperation by House and Senate Republicans with anything and everything President Obama attempted, in a five-hour meeting that took place in The Caucus Room (an upscale D.C. restaurant), even as President Obama stood on the steps of the Capitol building reciting the oath of office, where about 15 movers and shakers in the GOP (including House members Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, and Dan Lungren, Senators Jim DeMint, Jon Kyi, Tom Coburn, John Ensign, and Bob Corker, as well as conservative pundit Fred Barnes, future candidate Newt Gingrich and right wing political strategist Frank Luntz. It was at that meeting that a plan was hatched for Republicans to present an absolutely united front in opposition to virtually anything and everything President Obama would try to do. Cynical though it certainly was, the logic behind the strategy was one that would have done Machiavelli proud: use every means possible to obstruct your opponent from being able to effectively govern, then vigorously castigate that same opponent for being unable to get much of anything.accomplished.

It is therefore an absurdity to suggest that the pursuit of health care reform was a "blunder," the consequence of which was an extremely polarized political climate, and that such polarization could have been avoided if only he had not so "blundered." Insisting, as President Obama did, on pursuing something that was much-needed, even though it might come at enormous political cost, was an act of courageous leadership that should have (at least in a rational universe) earned him a considerable measure of respect among voters, even if they continued to disagree with him on the specifics of that legislation. The GOP, by contrast, in pursuing an agenda of obstruction solely in the interest of political gain, demonstrated itself to be, collectively speaking, morally and ethically unfit to govern.

N.B.: I omitted from this comment, when I originally posted it, an additional item reported in Draper's book. It is a quote that Draper attributes to Newt Gingrich, which Draper writes was delivered at the close of that Inauguration Day, 2009 meeting:

"You will remember this day. You'll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."

I believe that quote buttresses the point I was making rather nicely!

(Edited by author 15 hours ago)

Mark,
You have the right to post what you please but when it comes to family I hope you use better judgement.
I do believe that you are over the top on many subjects and what you may say may have some truths but some body is giving you what they want you to know and as you know somewhere there is the real truth some where in the middle .
Don't be afraid to look at both side before jumping to a conclusion.

Not long ago, someone I know well, a conservative, chided me that my political opinions are based upon believing "what people want you to believe." Right. I mean, it's not as if I read voraciously, and daily, from sources across the political spectrum, or seek out journalists who have a solid reputation for independent reporting or anything like that, nor is it like I have spent the last 30 years living in the nation's largest city and working in international law firms with lawyers who have been major power brokers in both parties. Yep, I've been shielded alright. Of course, I _must_ be the naive, deluded one who is taken in by political spin.

Mind you, I don't for a minute believe that any of the above qualifies me as any sort of expert. I'm just another voter trying to sort through a mountain of conflicting information, trying to determine what is or is not true, just like anybody else. Indeed, people would rightly resent it if I claimed any special insight on politics based merely on the circumstantial happenstances of my life. But goddamn it, I am a 51-year-old man with a reasonably respectable intellect and decent education who has seen his share of life's ups and downs, and I heartily resent being told that my political opinions are any less founded than those of any other adult, merely because someone disagrees with them. I do believe I am qualified to speak from my own experience, just as every other adult is. I would never discount a person's opinion merely because I disagreed with it. At a minimum, I would recognize that it is, at least in part, a product of that person's experience. I might take issue with a lack of evidence supporting a viewpoint, or if I think there is reason to question alleged evidence presented in support of something. If so, I would give you the respect, as a fellow human being, of laying out my objections honestly. What I would not do is take refuge behind some unverifiable and unfalsifiable assertion that you are the mere dupe of some vast conspiracy of folks trying to tell you what to believe. That is a cheap, and grossly condescending, shot. No, I would respect you enough to lay responsibility for your own ideas, and for choosing to lend credibility to the sources you choose to lend credibility to, squarely at _your_ feet, because I believe you, like me, are an adult who bears the civic responsibility for informing himself on the issues we face as a nation. So, please, do me the same respect -- unless, that is, you want me to remind you of exactly how provincial your outlook really is.

This person concluded his lecture by telling me not to "be afraid to look at the other side." Well folks, I _have_ looked at the other side, and have done so for many, many years. (I slogged through every creepy, self-indulgent page of both volumes of Nixon's Memoirs at the age of 16, and haven't stopped reading politics since!) I can probably summarize the GOP platform better than many Republicans. With all due respect, Republicans, i submit it is many of YOU who haven't sufficiently looked at what your party has become, or who and what your candidate really is.

Just sayin'.