Questioning Obama’s Method


Blocked for one year now, health insurance reform puts into question Barack Obama’s ability to govern. The president has a curious way of governing. Over a period of several months, he watched as Congress debated the issue without taking advantage of his supermajority in the Senate to put an end to the fight. Now that the Republicans, after a special election, have earned the right to object, he is obliged to enter the battle. Whatever the final result may be, the political cost of the operation will be high.

Arranged by the White House on Thursday, the “summit” on health care didn’t bring any change. That wasn’t actually its objective. Eight months before midterm elections and in front of television cameras, the supporters and opponents of reform could only plead their opposing causes.

Barack Obama wanted to show that Republicans have been sticking by their refusal to compromise. He has probably succeeded. He claimed to be open to debate. We have not been duped. If he was really seeking a compromise, he could go about it in another manner — exercising, in private, his persuasive power to win the consent of any senator or representative and redoubling efforts, in public, to defend his bill that has lost public support.

It is a widely held belief that the U.S. political system is at stake, that the minorities’ power in Congress make it almost impossible to bring reforms to the nation, except in emergency situations, like the approval of the recovery plan or saving the automotive industry. This is partly true, but Obama’s method needs to be questioned as well.

Like many of his predecessors, he got to the White House by promising to “change the way business is done in Washington.” In this respect, there has been much deception. Nothing has been done to combat the polarization of opinions reflected by Congress that contribute heavily to political blockage.

To prove his ability to govern, Barack Obama simply must pass his health reform bill. What remains is to go about it by force via a simple majority vote. This isn’t the best way to oil the wheels, considering the upcoming November elections and the many challenges faced by the United States.

About this publication


1 Comment

  1. The far left cannot reform or change anything without dictating the country into a false identity. President Nixon was a republican president that knew the danger of socialist programs and welfare that weakened the nation into dependency. He was fair enough to keep the values of the country to the left with its cultural freedoms without compromising the country’s laws and protecting it’s citizens. 1974 was the brightest time in this nation in a way that held no position with Greed or Terrorism. The general nature of the country was intelligent with a huge dose of common sense. Thee middle class was the majority and it held the country together with hard work and decency.
    Watergate never bothered me in relation to the next 6 presidents. As far as I’m concerned it was some way for the democrats then to set up Presdident Nixon. Fortunately he was pardoned and never went to prison. He had a decent background in law and served in the military. His daughter was the most beautiful bride ever in the white house. Even if President Nixon lied he held the truest part of this nation together and kept it free. At least for those who cared.

Leave a Reply