Continuing with the poker analogy I used in
last night's posting, we now know the hand that
Barack Obama is holding, It's not Pocket Rockets but it's the next best thing.
The plan the Obama White House unveiled today is far from bullet-proof, it is not perfection by any means, but it is, in fact,
genuine and significant health care reform that will, slowly, improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans.
The implied strategy is that Obama will use the full force of his congressional majority and, after letting the Republicans posture and bluff this coming Thursday, he will bring it all home in a simple up/down vote in Congress -- a 50% plus one "reconciliation" vote that sidesteps a Republican filibuster.
He's looking down at Pocket Kings. Cowboys. A monster hand.
He's had it the whole time. At least since his election and that of an overwhelming Democratic majority in November '08. Some like to "slow play" -- to disguise your big hand with moderate, cautious bets trying to sucker in your opponent. The danger here is that you allow your opponent, for a cheap price, to play the flop -- the next three community cards that hit the table. That means that if some donkey has called your small camouflaged bet with a cruddy suited 10-2, he stands a slight chance of hitting two pair or a flush draw on the flop and wiping out your Kings.
That's exactly what we have seen in the last year. When Obama sat down at the table holding all the big cards, his weak play allowed the Republicans cheap entry into the game and they have hammered him with everything from filibusters to whining about deficits, socialism, death panels and tea parties. He has let crap hands eat away at his big stack of political capital.
Now, hopefully, he's had enough. Time to shift gears, to mix up the play as they say. You take your strong hands and you play them very aggressively. Let the other guy think he can bluff you out but you suck him in for every nickel he has. You bet like you're holding Kings and then let the other guy gasp when you actually have them.
Obama never lost his cards. He has just yet to play them forcefully. Will he now raise the stakes and bust out his less talented opponents? I'm hoping against hope.
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 22nd, 2010 at 8:18 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Why can’t Robert Gibbs explain things this clearly ?
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:16 pm
But does he have the votes in the house?
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 am
Well, Hillel, there’s only one way to find out, no? There’s another poker term we can use here. “Table Captain.” No one appoints you to that position. You earn it by aggressive and disciplined play that galvanizes your position. Mostly through fear. It always better to be feared than loved. Obama has but one play left for the next 3 years. He pushes it all in and proves he is indeed the captain. Or winds up as a “rail bird.” Look it up.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:46 am
Well Marc I’m hoping against hope too. I may be one of your more pessimistic Obama observers but there’s nothing I would love more than to be proven wrong and have him pull this off…
I heard Howard Dean saying that Medicare at 55 could end up being the public option pushed through reconciliation. Damn I’d love to see the rotten egg all over Lieberman’s face if they can pull that off. Please let it be so….
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:27 am
I’m not sure how this is all going to play out of course, but it does reinforce the consistent dangers of underestimating Obama.
Much of the progressive criticism I hear of Obama, (not all of it wrong by any means), treats Obama like he’s a semi-stupid robot fated to continue on his mechanical walk to political suicide.
Do these people think that he doesn’t watch the news, read the commentary, check the polls, count his votes, and think about how to advance his agenda? Of course he does, and given the savvy he showed in his campaign, it’s a safe bet that he’s applying that process to being President as well.
I think it turns out to be a mistake to go all out for the bi-partisan show, and yet I appreciate the effort, since our civic culture is about as sick and morose as it can get.
I’m usually very suspicious of post hoc explanations, but consider this possibility: Perhaps Obama wanted to go through this theater of opposition, hoping that the Repubs would show some comity (thanks McCain), but knowing they would harden like concrete and leave him with the winning position for the remainder of his term(s). To change from the poker metaphor, maybe he was playing Ali to the Repubs Foreman.
Is it possible that he’s been that crafty? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting possibility.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I think we all know that this is make-or-break time for the Obama administration. I know that our host is not fond of Evan Bayh, for good reason, but I think (despite his wife’s insurance connections and his own traditional deference to Eli Lilly (probably the biggest corporation in Indiana)) that Bayh will continue his principled argument against the 60 vote filibuster. That will provide cover for those who are reluctant to go the “reconciliation” route, but know this is the only chance to provide the American people with the health care reform they want and need. This is 75% hope and 25% predicition on my part.
I am I suppose conservative in the sense that
I don’t like the idea of messing with a system that has been more good than bad over the last 220 years. But the Repubs have left us with no choice. To characterize their position as cynical is kind. They have spent the last year-plus really subverting the American system of republican governance by insisting that nothing serious be passed without a 60 vote super-majority. They are betting that the American people will not punish them for doing this, but will take it out on Obama and the Democrats, on the basis that “the Dems and their Negro superstar had their chance and couldn’t get anything done.”
And unless the Dems can get healthcare done, the destroyers of progress will not only win, they will be rewarded (if modestly) by the electorate this November. Is there an alternative to reconciliation? Nope. Well, yes. It is political extinction.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
The tower of quivering jelly known as President Obama has decided not to push for a public option because, well, that would require something he lacks–leadership.
This quote from Adam Greene says it best:
“The White House obviously has a loser mentality — but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. More than 50 Senate Democrats and 218 House Democrats were willing to vote for the public option before, and the only way to lose in reconciliation is if losers are leading the fight. That’s why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner.”
February 24th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Great description. This is why I read Marc Cooper. HCR has benn a much bigger drama than I thought or would like it to be. I get the feeling none of it surprises this blog’s host.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:40 am
Dan O: “but it does reinforce the consistent dangers of underestimating Obama.”
Puh-leze… Obama has even less leadership ability than Bush. He did run a brilliant campaign, but he hasn’t been able to get off the dime since then.
February 25th, 2010 at 5:37 am
Roper:
Well, let’s revisit this when health care reform passes. Which is what’s going to happen.
Obama most certainly made the decision to let Congress take the lead on this, and that has contributed to the notion that he’s a big weakling. I can’t say whether another strategy would have been better, but we know Clinton’s more forceful strategy didn’t work. For what it’s worth, I think Obama has been way to risk averse throughout this process.
Yes, I’ll take the bait. Bush? More leadership ability? He did decide to lead us into a war that had nothing at all to do with 9/11. If that counts as leadership ability, I’ll have to give you the nod on that one. Oh, and thanks for the massive deficits. The people of New Orleans admire his leadership ability as well. I’m tempted to take a vacation day so I have enough time to work through all of his leadership ability. It’s an impressive and unmatched record.
February 25th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Roper won’t respect Obama’s leadership until he quits his job, like Roper’s “GOP savior”, Sarah Palin. That’s Leadership !!!
I know few here take this character seriously, but what amazes me is that Roper doesn’t consider himself a joke. The total brain death of contemporary “conservatism” is sorely evident on his blog.
And less we forget, this is the idiot who accused anyone who criticized Bush – who even Roper is hard-pressed to defend at this late date – of a “Derangement Syndrome”, while now he posts a picture of President Obama as a Soviet General on his site for sore losers. “Irony” doesn’t even begin to address this level of pathology.
February 25th, 2010 at 9:28 am
GM Roper opposed the tax break for employers passed in Congress, incidentally. Because, of course, Democrats proposed it. Cutting payroll taxes for new employees who have been unemployed. Not a panacea, but certainly woth supporting by any sane human being. But he calls this modest initiative, who no one claims is a “panacea” for unemployment at current levels, “a monstrosity.” A sick man… What’s your suggestion to resolve the current levels of unemployment, Roper ? Or are you some combination of too stupid and too cowardly to do anything other than lob shit bombs from the wingnutsphere ? Is there some magic bullet that you know about and Obama doesn’t ? And meanwhile – in lieu of “conservative” genius at stimulating job creation (which Bush failed at in a major way even in relatively good times with one of the worst jobs records ever) – should we refuse to take modest initiatives that give employers considering new hires an incentive by cutting taxes on those new jobs ? And applaud those who would block such modest, non-ideological efforts ? Your lame crap disgusts me.