I'm terribly afraid you're exactly right here. I cannot understand why Obama and his administration have folded what is surely a handful of aces.

The only alternate scenario I can think of is that he has become convinced that cutting insurance companies down to size would be detrimental to economic recovery.

While I can't go with you over to The Dark Side (i.e., Obama's plan all along was to back down on this issue because he's secretly working with the opposition to screw us), I do agree that Swift Boating is going on in extremis.

And I also wonder--have Swift Boat tactics ever been successfully countered?

When somebody is unwilling to listen to (let alone admit the legitimacy of) reason, logic, evidence and facts, you're sort of out of ammo, aren't you?

How DO you un-froth a gullible, misinformed audience whipped into an emotional hysteria by smears and lies?

Excellent post Dennis. For me, the core of the matter is:

"he has both chambers of Congress prohibitively, filibuster-proof in Democratic hands. He has 80% of the American public on the side of at least a public option in health insurance. He has the moral high ground in the face of the screaming, irrational, bullies in the Town Halls. Even if he didn't have the majority on his side and even if the Congress wasn't on his side, it would be morally right and the rational course to take health care out of the hands of the parasitic HMO's.
Yet he's waving the white flag of surrender."

We've seen this since the inauguration. On issue after issue, when faced with the option of fulfilling the mandate he was elected under or compromising with discredited and morally bankrupt reactionaries, he's chosen compromise, or even retreat. It was puzzling and disturbing, but I kept hoping the retreats were anomalies. Now I see a pattern, and am seriously re-thinking the way I view this administration.

This seemed like a rational post, if one I didn't entirely agree on, until I arrived here: "Obama seeks common ground with mobs led by fascists. "

Leigh: The insurance companies are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They are a huge drag on the economic welfare of the public and of medicare care workers. Propping them up and protecting their profits was always part of Obama's plan which is why he never put on single payer on the table in the first place.

Verbal: I don't think that it was Obama's plan all along to back down. I think he genuinely was trying to modify health insurance. But when push came to shove (literally in this case), he sides with the GOP and the insurance companies against the people.

As for whether Swift Boating has ever been successfully countered, Obama's presidential run involved reacting right away to any lie and distortion to avoid a Swift Boating. It was rather impressive, in fact, in that sense. Obama, unlike Kerry, isn't a patsy in the face of attacks, ordinarily. But on nearly all of the major issues as a president, in ALL of the major issues when it comes to the national security state, he has taken the wrong side. This reflects in part the fact that he is now the political leader and representative of the Empire.

As for unfrothing a gullible, misinformed audience whipped up into hysteria: you restore the Fairness Doctrine. This is what I said earlier today in the comment thread at devilgrrl's blog:

There is only one reason why Rush gets to have the forum that he has in this country: the Fairness Doctrine's abolition in 1987.

The FD dates from the New Deal and required that broadcasters provide [equal] time for opposing viewpoints. The radical right, in trying to reverse the 1960's and the 1930's movements that curbed their power, had plans to build a right-wing media empire and knew that to do so they'd need to get rid of the FD. (See former right-winger David Brock's excellent account of this in his book, The Republican Noise Machine). Rush and O' Reilly and the rest of them wouldn't last but for a few days if they had to put people on who showed them up for their lies and distortions and if they couldn't turn off their critics' mikes as O' Reilly does sometimes.

As the Town Hall fracases demonstrate, if you lie long enough and loudly enough, you can instigate Nazi-like mobs (especially if the undertext of those mobs is racism directed at the first black U.S. president) of people who are easily duped.

Revealing, Obama opposes the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. Why would a Democrat oppose restoring a regulation that would destroy the opposition's platform? This question takes on particular urgency in light of the Town Hall brawls and the terrible precedent that they set.

Obama's made the lame argument that there are enough different networks and stations to take care of diversity of viewpoints without the Fairness Doctrine.

We can't get inside of his head but we can examine his statements and look at his actions.

His opposition to restoring the FD is consistent with his caving on the public option (itself a very weak substitute for single-payer) and with his upholding and defense of critical pieces of the Bush policies on "national security:" state secrets, sovereign immunity, prolonged detention (even if you're tried and found innocent!), surveillance, signing statements, rendition, blocking the release of the deeply incriminating torture photographs, refusing to prosecute admitted torturers...

In other words, he'd rather cave in the face of a few hundred crazies worked up by fascists than do what is right, what the vast majority of people want, and what his party could push through regardless of the crybaby GOP. Why? Because he really isn't on the people's side. Even though he's got his own contradictions with the radical extremists (some of whom would like to assassinate him and who are packing guns and getting away with it!), his allegiance is to the Empire first and foremost that he serves.

***
nanatehay: You are right, there is a pattern.

Steve: Rush and Beck and O'Reilly ARE fascists. The tactics they used in the Town Halls and their calls for violence (such as O'Reilly's "Tiller the Killer" repeated refrain before Dr. Tiller's assassination) are fascist. I don't use this term lightly, nor do I use it as an insult. It is the simple and unmodified truth.

My favorite wrestler was Ivan Putski, the Polish Hammer.

Lakoff often writes about branding and how much better the Reps are at it than the Dems. That certainly holds true with the rather bland "public option." Something American-sounding or patriotic-sounding would have worked better. Like, hw can you vote against The Patriot Act?

Also, I think Obama should have just had a meeting with all the Dem Senators, crafted a bill that works for all of them, passed it and told the Reps to take a hike. That's leadership.

Rated

This is really interesting. I'm now a bit hopeful that something could be achieved.

I don't know enough about American politics and social structures to comment on the issue, if Obama originally really wanted health care system reforms. My opinion earlier was that the health care reform plan was simply used to gather votes and that Obama wasn't seriously thinking to do something for it. Now, whatever was Obama's idea beforehand, I think that health care reforms could now become realities.

I think that in this time the public opinion could have the real influence.

Whatever was Obama's idea what to do with the power, he is now dependent on the public opinion, he can't afford losing his popularity? His administration couldn't stand mass demonstrations on the streets? People want some real changes and they can push Obama to do something.

I think that now America should try putting its own house in order.

Call the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and start building there peace instead. Just send there UN peace corps, doctors, civil engineers.

John: You're right: that is what Obama could and should have done, but he's not going to do it.

Hannu: The basis obviously is there for the demonstrations you speak of, whether they will happen or not is the question.

It is as if Obama began the health care debate with a first down on the fifty yard line and has been angling for field position to kick a field goal ever since.

David: There was a Superbowl in which the Q-back, I'm sorry, I don't remember his name, went down in the backfield even though no one touched him, in anticipation by him of his being tackled. This is what Obama just did in surrendering on the "public option" of his health care plan.

Excellent piece.

I'm still waiting for him to pull an LBJ and slap his ducks back into a row. Either that, or follow the advice of Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft who said that if he’s really serious about getting health care reform done this year, he should be pressuring the World Health Organization to raise the Swine Flu pandemic alert level to 7...

Desperate blogger: Nice piece of satire on your blog on this issue. I wouldn't hold my breath for Obama to do an LBJ... He's been very, very consistent, and in the wrong direction.

I didn’t incorporate the comments, but your blog is totally on target. Your professional wrestlers are a perfect model. It seems abundantly clear that we’re stuck in a 2 card Monte game. It’s amazing how many sheep have partaken the kool aid and tonic…

Max: We ought to revise the way this country's political system is often described from "Two party system" to "2 Card Monte System." : )

I agree with part of your analysis, but Pres. Obama is not caving to the crazies. He is under pressure from big business -- pharma and the insurance giants.

These giants are also "too big to fail" as in they are too powerful to ever likely to fail. Short of the government regulating or competing with them, they have no competition in the free market.

Pres. Obama has his hands full just now. I hope he makes it out of this battle alive. I live in the land of the crazies and there is a LOT of hate talk .

LaLucas: Yes, I remember your previous comments about the kind of people who live in your community. You are correct that Obama is caving to the HMOs and Big Pharma. But he is also caving to the extreme right wing (i.e., the GOP). If he doesn't stand up to this your worst fears may be realized because it only emboldens them if they get their way. They will do more of this and worse: it will get increasingly more extreme, more outrageous, and more dangerous.

Once again, I don't totally agree with you on many issues, ( it might be fun to discuss the fairness doctrine one day) but you point out something that I've suspected for quite a while, If you, from the Left, can see it the "Pro Wrestling" aspects of Left wing politicians, and I can see it in Right wing Politicians, why can't we end this farce and elect some real people to government?

Token: I'd be happy to discuss the Fairness Doctrine anytime.

Let us assume a hypothetical scenario regarding your point about electing good leaders: in the 2010 elections a majority in Congress comes from a third party that is committed to restoring the New Deal and withdrawing from all of the foreign wars and occupations. They have a veto proof and filibuster proof majority. Their stands reflect the mass sentiment in the country. They begin to do the things they promised. Do you think that the vested interests in the military and corporate world would allow this to happen? Do you think that a manufactured terrorist incident couldn't be created "necessitating" martial law?