Tag Archives: Medicare

This is bad reporting.

Media, Politics, , , , , ,

Let’s assume you’re a normal person. And let’s propose a scenario in which, after years of gridlock between Republicans and Democrats in Washington, the GOP finally seems to be willing to give a little — now that they’ve definitively lost the last two presidential elections and polling appears to be mostly on the side of Democratic policies.

In such a situation, you’d probably welcome the prospect of a Republican thaw and assume it may help produce actual bipartisan legislation for once, no?

Well, no. Not if you’re the New York Times:

But the politics of one core dispute between Democrats and Republicans — what to do about Medicare — are changing. And some of those changes complicate President Obama’s agenda, even as he continues to flex his postelection muscle.

One shift is the shrinking magnitude of the Medicare spending problem — a consequence, at least for now, of a recent slowdown in the rise of health care costs. That diminishes the willingness of Congressional Democrats, and perhaps the administration, too, to accept the sort of Medicare curbs that Mr. Obama has indicated that he favors.

Another is a moderation in the public stance of Republican leaders. In recent weeks, they have advocated smaller changes to Medicare than the “premium support” or voucher plan that Mitt Romney advocated and that Mr. Obama denounced in last year’s presidential campaign.

As a result, Mr. Obama’s ability to deliver a bipartisan compromise on entitlement spending may be waning even as Republicans edge closer to one.

That’s right: Republican moderation is partly why President Obama may be unable to “deliver a bipartisan compromise.” If that sounds ridiculously counterintuitive, it’s because it is.

Yes, I realize the point of the article: that Obama and the Democrats now feel they have the upper hand, which might make them likelier to press their advantage while they have it — thus derailing the hope of a deal. (Never mind the fact that there is virtually no historical/empirical basis to support the notion that the Democrats have taken, or will ever take, advantage of whatever leverage they have.)

But this contorted logic only makes any sense in the context of the conventional wisdom that major media players like the New York Times help create. Mainstream journalists love to mock bloggy sites like Politico for their seeming giddiness in reporting on Washington insider politics, and yet this article — appearing in the Paper of Record, no less — is Beltway cynicism at its worst.

Maybe if the Times focused less on creating counter-incentives that don’t yet exist and exerted more effort instead on sensible reporting of actual political developments, we wouldn’t have so many of these manufactured crises in the first place.

Preparing for the worst

Politics, , , , , , , ,

One of the fascinating aspects of the three debates so far (two presidential, and one vice presidential) has been to watch how the candidates have handled their alleged vulnerabilities. In each debate, one or both of the candidates had a significant weakness or flaw that was ripe to be exploited by his opponent.

The thing is, everyone knew this. And that means the candidates — and more importantly, their debate prep teams — knew this even better. So perhaps it should come as no surprise that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the candidates have had some of their strongest moments on issues that were expected to trip them up.

In the above video, President Obama takes Mitt Romney to task for his criticism regarding the consulate attack in Benghazi, leaving the former Massachusetts governor flailing a bit in his response. This was supposed to be Romney’s trump card, and Obama — who had clearly been waiting to respond to this — instead turned it into perhaps his strongest moment of the night.

We saw similar dynamics during the vice presidential debate. Most expected Joe Biden to dominate Paul Ryan on foreign policy and for the opposite to occur in relation to Medicare. But in truth, something a little closer to the opposite took place: Ryan opened fire very early on regarding the attack in Libya, leaving Biden to issue a less than reassuring rebuttal about America’s resolve. Meanwhile, Biden proved perhaps more convincing on Medicare than Ryan did, never allowing the Congressman to drag the conversation into the weeds.

In the first presidential debate, the largest elephant in the room was Mitt Romney’s 47% comment, which Obama — in his dazed and confused performance that night — never managed to bring up. But assuredly Romney had a response all cued up beforehand for that as well. (Interestingly, Obama managed to work in a reference to the 47% issue on the last question of last night’s debate, a phenomenal tactical move that denied Romney the chance to use a prepackaged and rehearsed rebuttal.)

As the upcoming final debate next Monday is on foreign policy, technically the subject should be moving back onto Obama’s turf. But if there’s anything these first three debates have taught us (other than the enormous versatility of the common binder), it’s that waiting to pounce on your opponent’s weakest point does not always pay dividends.

Immediate thoughts

Politics, , , , , , ,

Full disclosure: I have not steered entirely clear from post-debate news coverage, and I was quite active on Twitter during the debate itself. That said, I’ve yet to absorb much post-debate spin at all, so here are my initial thoughts, pre-groupthink phase:

1) Everyone knew Joe Biden would be on the attack, and he was. However, I really think he overplayed it — especially with the laughing while Paul Ryan was speaking. (He also interrupted Ryan way too much.) There was far too much of that going on. It’s not a good — or a serious — image for Biden to be guffawing on the split-screen while Ryan discusses Iranian nuclear aspirations. Three or four times might have been alright, but Biden was laughing so much that it was quickly obvious that the laughter had been part of the debate prep. Biden’s good enough (and authentic enough) on his own without resorting to prepackaged and insincere facial expressions.

2) That said, when it was time for him to speak, Biden was on fire. He was lucid, specific, and even demonstrated the perfect level of righteous indignation at Ryan’s naïveté. It felt like the old master schooling the cocky young apprentice. Especially on the crucial issue of Medicare, Biden never allowed Ryan to get into the weeds with obscure statistics and numbers: he simply steamrolled over him and directly addressed seniors — his peers — while looking directly into the camera. Ryan didn’t have the facts on his side; Biden did. And he kept pressing Ryan for specifics, which Ryan was unable to provide.

3) At first, I liked the moderator. But when she started directing nearly all her follow-up questions to Paul Ryan and at one point even seemed to mock him (I can’t remember what exactly she said, but the tone of one of her questions to him was distinctly ironic), I was disappointed. Biden was taking care of business just fine; she should have at least pressed Biden on some of the things he was claiming, if for no other reason than the fact that Obama-Biden have an actual record they have to account for. Romney-Ryan may be promising the moon, and it’s absolutely appropriate to press for specifics (no matter how uncomfortable it makes them), but in my opinion she looked biased by consistently failing to follow up on Biden’s defenses of the Obama administration.

4) While I do believe Paul Ryan got schooled, I don’t think there was much he could have done differently. He maintained a calm, even keel throughout the debate, suffering through Biden’s mockery and near-constant interruptions. He spoke slowly and deliberately. Unlike the presidential debate, where it was more apparent that Obama had lost it than that Romney had won it, this time the tables were turned: Joe Biden clearly won the debate, but Ryan definitely did not do anything to embarrass himself or Mitt Romney. My one major beef with Ryan’s performance (other than the fact that he defends indefensible policies) was something he may or may not even be able to control: he just looks and feels insincere, even cheesy. His closing line elicited uproarious laughter among the group watching the debate with me: he looked straight into the camera and recited an obviously scripted stump speech with absolutely zero authenticity.

5) My takeaway? Biden’s performance will absolutely rile up the base. I also think it may make some inroads with seniors, especially those already wary of the sly-seeming Paul Ryan and his voucher plan. Biden is simply more credible to older people, especially as someone of retirement age and from a working-class background. As for the independents, I could easily imagine Biden’s performance working against him: he was perhaps overly combative with the constant interruptions and unconvincing laughter. When he spoke, he was spot-on; it’s what he was up to when he wasn’t supposed to be speaking that could be a big problem.

6) One thing I really didn’t like: Joe Biden bringing up his deceased wife to score a political point. Just…not classy.

This was definitely a high point for me of the election season so far, and I couldn’t have agreed more with the Twitter user who posted, “I wish I could watch this debate forever.” Amen, brother.