I'm not convinced that Obama's not a listener. (Your assessment of his "talking" is spot-on) Part of me thinks that his "tone deaf" qualities are more a product of his administration/white house staff than his personal ability.

I haven't seen the video, but I understand that he handled himself very well when he engaged in the question/answer forum at the GOP conference last week. If this is the case, then he had to have been listening well in communicating with the group. Once again, I haven't seen this footage.

So I guess this brings us back to your favorite topic, politics. It's possible that the staff he has hired around him are perfectly able to listen, but have opted to ignore certain voices, at least, for the time being. (Not arguing whether they are right or wrong in doing this, but I don't think his staff is filled with idiots. I think they can hear just fine.)

I agree with your basic assessment of W.

I watched the video Quaid was talking about, and he had a very civil, open-forum discussion with a room full of people who disagree with 90% of what he says.

He's done unpopular things. The bailouts, escalation of Afghan war, and the HealthCare fight (which, to be fair, he has little control over at the moment), but I don't know if they are the result of being "tone-deaf." A majority of people still say they want reform of the Health Care system. A majority are against this particular bill, but when you break it down to the different elements of the proposed plan, people like basically everything except for the fact that it will cost almost a trillion dollars. As for Afghanistan, I think serious foreign policy requires doing things that aren't popular. With the bailouts, while I wasn't for them, I know that if we had done nothing and the economy had remained stagnant for a while, the people would have been furious that the government wasn't doing anything about the economy. The people don't know what they want, most of the time.

You're right about Bush.

Ideally, we want someone who is a good balance of both. One of the President's chief jobs is to be a talker. He is the statesman. I don't know if Obama's not a listener, because I still see him as a basically reasonable person (and I'm not even a communist). I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but I don't believe he isn't interested in listening.

I'm totally open to the idea (truth?) that Obama is a great listener. I stand by the observation that he doesn't seem like he is.

I'm totally open to the idea (truth?) that Obama is a great listener.

I wouldn't say he's a "great" listener. Just not bad, maybe? Most of the time, I just see what I want to see in politicians. :-)

I think he's intelligent, so I don't think the lack of appearance of being a listener is due to being incompetent at it. But I think he's choosing not to listen to what many people more conservative are saying because he doesn't agree with their viewpoints.

That being said: I haven't watched the video. I hear it was good. And good for him if that's the case.

I think his eloquence and speechmaking are way over-rated. That doesn't mean he's bad at it. But there's no way to live up to the hype. He's a decent speaker, but he's no Abe Lincoln or Martin Luther King. He comes across (to me, at least) as a bit too terse, a bit too defensive when he speaks. I thought his election night 2008 speech was fabulous. Since then (my pov only) it's gone downhill.

people like basically everything except for the fact that it will cost almost a trillion dollars.

Yes, if not for that one small detail :-)

(actually, even if it was not budget-blasting, I'd still be against it. I think voluntarily giving the Government more power over you than absolutely necessary is naive. Surely there are better ways. Not to open up a new topic . . .)

I know I need to pray more for our President.

Yes, if not for that one small detail :-)

(actually, even if it was not budget-blasting, I'd still be against it. I think voluntarily giving the Government more power over you than absolutely necessary is naive. Surely there are better ways. Not to open up a new topic . . .)


Well, I don't imagine I'll ever convince you that I agree with you on the role of government (though I do), so you'll just have to believe me when I say that I don't support the current health care proposal.

My point wasn't that the detail was small, it was that people aren't fundamentally opposed to the reform. Polls indicate that most people believe in the necessity of reform, and even agree on most of the details, they just don't like that we'll have to pay for it (living beyond our means: the American dream). My point was that, weighing everything, Obama (for the sake of brevity, we'll pretend that he's the only person in the Federal government who wants health care reform) might simply say that the desire for reform will overcome the backlash over costs. And, in my opinion, they wouldn't be completely off base for saying that. It's been shown, over and over, that a majority of people want health care reform, and that same majority also doesn't want it to affect them at all. For a majority of Americans, however slight, the fundamental opposition to health care reform is economic, not philosophical. A President could interpret that the same way he would interpret data that suggested a majority of people support a war, but don't want anyone to be killed.

But, again, I don't support the plan, and I hope Republicans wield their new found mojo to get a better bill. I don't think they will, but if they do, the President will either sign it, or he won't. If he vetoes it, he's tone deaf. If he signs it, he shows he can listen (or at least hear).

Well, I don't imagine I'll ever convince you that I agree with you on the role of government (though I do), so you'll just have to believe me when I say that I don't support the current health care proposal

I believe you on both counts. My statement above wasn't meant as any kind of rebuttal.

I do wonder, though. Most people want healthcare reform, but trying to pass healthcare reform seems to be political suicide. There's a disconnect there I don't understand.I think it has to do w the level of trust in the government

I guess the last sweeping healthcare reforms passed were medicare and medicaid. Those were passed by a government that had a far higher level of cred w the american people than is remotely possible now (post vietnam, watergate, etc).

Most people want healthcare reform, but trying to pass healthcare reform seems to be political suicide.

Maybe. At this point though, it seems that dropping it completely would be worse, politically. It would be like punting on the opponent's one yard line.

I feel I get was that there was a goalline stand and they were stuffed from getting the touchdown. They won't get the opportunity again, for awhile, but might be able to kick a field goal.

I don't know what's best or worst, politically. Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican who ran on stopping this health care reform (not all health care reform). The clear political message seems to be to either ratchet way down, or start over.

I dunno.

The clear political message seems to be to either ratchet way down, or start over.

Yes, but the message is never "do nothing." No politician has ever run on the platform of not confronting problems. The democrats understand that they have to get something passed, and that they have passed bills in both houses. They know that those who voted for the bills will never be able to run in opposition to health care. They've reached the point of no return.

They've reached the point of no return.

Well, I disagree, but time will tell. There is rarely a time where there is no choice in politics. They may not be able to physically pass a bill due to Republican opposition. A number of the Democratic members who were sketchy before can now declare that they think we need to pull back and take another shot at this, rather than pass something. Hemming and hawing will ensue for quite some time, and then the election will happen.

I know a majority of people want reform (whatever that means), but a majority of people don't want *this* reform. The Democrats really hurt themselves with the way these bills were developed, the deals that were cut, the huge complexity of the bills, the suspect predictions of deficit neutrality, the very real chance of exploding the deficit, etc.

So, yes, they may pass something this year and if so, I'll be proven wrong. We'll see. My prediction is that they switch focus (at least in appearance) to jobs, the deficit, and the economy heading into the next election. Depending on the resulting Congress after Nov 2010, some kind of health care reform (not sure the size) may be considered next time.

There's a decent chance that they won't be able to do much, in which case the economy will probably breathe a sigh of relief and heal itself, and then Congress and the President can take the credit, and all will be right with the world :-) - hopefully (but I think still in doubt) we'll have a more divided government starting in January 2011. Then things might progress in a good way, with Congress unable to muck things up too much.

(Three cheers for divided Government! :-)

I think we basically agree.

In terms of pure, election politics, democrats are praying that something gets passed, even if it's not a huge, sweeping behemoth bill. If they don't, they will get hammered in 2010 and 2012 (that doesn't mean Obama won't retain the Presidency). By "point of no return" I meant that they will probably try and pass something, however modest. For a bill this size, pertaining to such an important issue, to have passed a bill through both houses but being unable to finish the job would be seen as the worst kind of failure. I hope that Brown and a few other Republicans can band together with some of the more moderate Democrats and craft a better bill that addresses the enormous costs of medicare and medicaid, and paves the way for more general reform in the future. I don't think it will happen, but that's my best case scenario.

Whatever happens, it's going to be very ugly. Democrats know how impatient the electorate is, and how fast they can turn.

To the broader point, I think this is when we will see what kind of President Obama will be. If he takes a stand and vows not to compromise, it will be the death of his administration. If he uses the new dynamic to his advantage, gets a compromise through and signs it, it will be a victory for him. Jared asks a really good question. I think the answer has yet to be seen.

Should be fun.

Yes, I think we're on the same page.

Jared, I think this question could/would only be asked by someone who likes Bush.

While it's a good question, and I'm inclined to agree that you have a point...

All the Bush-haters would say the dude was anything BUT a listener. They would say that he didn't listen. He didn't listen to the UN. He didn't listen to the international community. He didn't listen to "cooler" heads within his own administration like Colin Powell. He just crashed ahead in his bullheaded, cowboy way without listening to anyone except the neo-cons and the religious right. That's what his critics would say.

That said, I think you have a GREAT point.