|
He led by determining the approx of the stimulus and getting that passed pretty much as requested.
some might not have "liked" the make up or amount of the Stimulus, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the President did lead on this.
He led on how he believes we should proceed in both Iraq and Afghanistand. We may not "like" how he led, but he led exactly as he said he would.
He led on deciding that we should tackle heath care reform, which is why we have been discussing Health Care now for almost a year.
He led by telling all ahead of time what it was that Health Care Reform should do, and then gave Congress their duly task (what they were elected to do) of putting together Health Care Reform. Perhaps we didn't want him to do it that way, but that is the way that he chose to do it. So it's not that he didn't lead on this, some just didn't "like" that he did it this way.
He had told all of us throughout the election that he was interested in Bipartisanship. Now, many may have not wanted that, but that has nothing to do with Pres. Obama sticking to the way he felt Health Care reform should be approached; with both parties participating. That's not a lack of leadership; that's a perfect example of one having a conviction and following through on it, even if it wasn't what Liberals wanted done.
Both bills passed through Congress, and NO we did not have a filibuster proof majority except in the imagination of those who don't want to accept facts; that many of the Dems do not agree with us, period. The fact that both bills passed shows leadership, considering that no other President had gotten that done before.
Well what about him not putting single payer on the table? He stated explicitly that we weren't going to be starting over. He stated that during the election, and followed through on that, in that he really never considered it, although he knew that there were folks out there who felt that this was the only way. So yeah....he didn't lead on discussion about single Payer, because that is exactly said he would do, not consider it as an option. Now, sure, some don't "like" this, but it has nothing to do with leading, because he'd already given us a heads up on that. The fact that those who wanted it considered couldn't persuade that to happen, doesn't have anything to do with his leadership, and may have more to do with the leadership of those who wanted it considered and couldn't get it done. If you voted for him, you already knew his stance on this, so none of it was a surprise, and disappointment from proponents of single payer does not equal lack of leadership.
So what about his giving the Public Option the shaft? As some have stated, he never pushed for it in the way that they had envisioned. But actually he told us that the PO wasn't a pre-requisite to passing health care, and that is how he led on that. Many might not like it, but based on his lack of emphasis on it (the PO is not a panacea was his attitude) that is how he felt about it, and acted accordingly. Point is not that this shows a lack of leadership; means that his emphasis was different from what many of us wanted it to be, and he emphasized what he thought was important.....in other words, he led in the manner that he chose to lead on this issue, which is why the House passed a PO and the Senate didn't....because he stated that he would like it, but would settle for something other than it, if it would achieve competition. The Senate instead passed the Exchange idea, and it is true that this set up does offer competition; just not in the same form as the PO exactly.
So now, where are we?
We have two bills that have passed both chambers of Congress.
We have had a thorough debate in where both parties have had their say, and Americans have been able to follow this debate if they wanted to.
We have the chance to insure 31 million of our citizens, lower cost, include folks who currently can't get health insurance, fund community clinics in a manner never seen, and a chance to set up exchanges to allow more choice than what we have now, and yes, a possible mandate, something that is something that the President changed his mind on, admitted that fact, and gave his rationale as to why he believed that Mandates are needed in order to make HCR work.
So he never led in pushing for government to provide free health care for everyone, and certainly he didn't say that he was leading in getting rid of Insurance companies, or that he was leading to get that going a giant government program (that's what the Right accused him of).
We have a chance to pass HCR, and he led to get to where we are on that. He is now calling on an up/down vote in the House to pass the Senate Bill.
He is stating that via reconciliation, once the bill is passed, a bill of fixes can be passed through the Senate. That is a fact, that it can be.
So Pres. Obama led just fine in my opinion, just that some didn't want to follow, and weren't gonna follow starting on day one, because what the President wanted in HCR isn't what same folks wanted.
A difference in opinion is not a failure to lead. Those who thinks so, must realize that they only say that, because where the President is leading is not where they, themselves, want to go. That's different. That's simply a difference in ideology and the difference between realizing and accepting that there was always a difference between what some wanted and what the President believed was doable.
He is exactly a leader...just that some would have preferred if he was the follower of what they had determined was needed, and No that didn't happen, precisely because he is a leader and not a follower.
You can hate, dislike, not want to support him any longer for it, but to state that where we are is due to a lack of his leadership is inaccurate. period.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
