Presidential TV

By Jennifer J. Foster

Facing increasing opposition, especially within his own party, to his massive health care reform plans, President Obama will take to the nation’s airwaves tonight in a primetime news conference to try to salvage wavering public support for his efforts.

Tonight’s episode of Obama TV will be Obama’s fourth such news conference since taking office in January.

(Actually, it’s been several weeks since he took politics to the people. So I guess we should have been ready for this announcement.)

But not everyone was on board. The networks are beginning to balk at the president’s habit for using their lucrative airtime to advance his political agenda. Typically, presidents only request network airtime in instances of national emergency; Obama, it seems, interprets “national emergency” to include those times when his political agenda is on the rocks.

It took some negotiating for the folks at the White House to convince the networks to carry tonight’s episode of Obama TV. CBS said yes right away, since they have reruns all summer (and no one really watches CBS for news, anyway). Fox flatly refused, knowing that folks can turn to their cable news channel if they want to see it. ABC wasn’t exactly thrilled about the prospect of parting with an hour of “Wipeout,“ perhaps the most aptly named television show—with the exception of MTV’s “Jackass”—that has ever existed. And NBC, after heavily promoting an episode of the hit show “America’s Got Talent” featuring an interview with British YouTube singing sensation Susan Boyle, basically said, “Thanks, but no thanks.“

Yes. Susan Boyle trumped the president of the United States.

So, to get NBC on board and calm the “Wipeout” concerns—

IRONY ALERT! The president wanted to pre-empt “Wipeout” to help avoid a political wipeout of his own. Hahaha! END IRONY ALERT

—the White House had to pull the president forward an hour, from their desired time of 9 p.m. Eastern to 8 p.m. This means that there are going to be a lot of folks on the West Coast who are still going to be on the 5, the 101 and the 405 when the president takes to the airwaves to make his case.

I guess they’ll have to make do with radio.

Anyway, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn was asked earlier on CNN what he’d like to hear from the president tonight. Coburn was gracious in his comments about Obama’s agenda; he said he believes the president wants “real reform,“ done in a “bipartisan” fashion that makes a real difference for Americans.

But congressional Democrats are the problem, Coburn said, and he’d like to hear the president say that it’s more important to get health care reform right than to meet a political deadline.

(Hey, that sounds familiar, too. Probably because it’s common sense.)

Coburn also said that he’d like to hear the president say that Congress should start over with the reform efforts and approach it in a bipartisan way, free of the aggressive social components that are included in the working bills.

Memo to Sen. Coburn, the last living idealist in Washington: Good luck. On both counts.

Annie, get your gun (permit optional)

By Jennifer J. Foster

UPDATE, 11:31 a.m. CT: The Senate has defeated the Thune amendment, 58-39. I will post the roll call vote here when it is made available by the Senate. END UPDATE

UPDATE 2, 12:38 p.m. CT: Here’s the link to the roll call vote on the Thune amendment. Both of Alabama’s senators voted for the amendment.

A couple of interesting notes: One, far more Democrats voted for the amendment than Republicans opposed it. Look at the states from which those supporting Democratic senators hail. Behold, purple America.

Similarly, there are three potential senators whose votes could have pushed this thing over the top: Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat; Bill Nelson, a moderate Democrat from Florida (which has the Castle Doctrine, folks, so don’t be breaking into any houses down there) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). It will be interesting to see how this vote plays in Specter’s re-election campaign. END UPDATE 2

The U.S. Senate is set to vote in the next few minutes on an amendment by U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) that would allow gun owners with valid permits to cross state lines with concealed weapons.

From The New York Times:

A group of Senate Democrats is mobilizing to defeat the amendment, but it remains to be seen whether they can amass the 40 votes necessary to filibuster the provision. (Another gun amendment attached to the D.C. voting rights bill earlier this year passed the Senate with bipartisan support and has crippled House Democrats’ efforts to bring up the voting legislation without the gun measure.)

It’s going to be interesting. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin is hoping to defeat the amendment, but according to NPR, he doesn’t even have his own leadership behind him: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who finds himself in a tight re-election fight in Nevada, plans to vote for provision.

Thune said in a statement that his proposal “strikes the appropriate balance between individual and states’ rights.”

I guess I’m going to need a constitutional scholar out there to explain to me why this provision is even necessary. Given the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, driver’s licenses are valid across state lines. What’s different about concealed weapons permits?

What are you willing to give up—part 2

By Jennifer J. Foster

In my previous post, I told you about a CNN blog post that asks you what you’re willing to give up in the health care reform debate.

I was notified this morning by regular reader Don S. that my comment, which I told you appeared on the list at 11:46 a.m., may not be appearing on the blog. I just checked it, and it says it’s “awaiting moderation.“

I don’t know whether that means it’s just visible to me in the short term or what, but I thought I’d go ahead and post it here since, if it’s still awaiting moderation almost 24 hours later, it might still be awaiting moderation by the time lawmakers get done with this business. So here it is:

The question isn’t about what I’m willing to give up. That’s irrelevant to the people making the decisions. The question is, what is the government willing to take from me to make this happen?

And the answer seems to be, anything that’s necessary.

What are you willing to give up?

By Jennifer J. Foster

I was watching CNN this morning when I heard the anchor tease something interesting on the blog.

As Congress moves ahead with the debate over health care reform, what are you willing to give up to help?

The interesting thing about this, to me, was the way CNN posed the question. As it is right now in Congress, the goal is unclear: Is is universal health insurance? Is it a government program? Is it increased affordability?

So ... what are you willing to give up? Please comment below.

Read through some of the comments CNN received, and compare your answers with those of other Americans.

It’s interesting, don’t you think, that some folks aren’t willing to give up anything—they still expect to take care of themselves, and they expect others to do the same.

If you’re interested in reading my response, you can see it on the list at 11:46 a.m.

That sounds familiar

By Jennifer J. Foster

Remember a week and a half ago when, in the column about the Blue Dog Democrats’ influence on health care reform, I said:

For all his efforts to make this his signature domestic policy issue, President Obama has been at best an interested observer. He’s advocated for universal coverage, and he’s done some town halls. But when it comes to bridging rhetoric and reality, he has been careful not to commit himself to anything – or rule anything out.

The president’s supporters say he’s respecting the legislative process, giving lawmakers the space to work things out themselves. His opponents say it’s just another example of Obama talking the talk, but being unwilling – or unable – to walk the walk; by refusing ownership of any specifics of the plan, he’s maintaining his deniability in case things go wrong.

This leadership gap gives congressional caucuses a golden opportunity to wield significantly more influence over legislation than they usually do.

Well, about 34 minutes ago, CNN’s Dana Bash posted this on the Political Ticker:

As the prospects for passing health reform by the time Congress leaves for its August recess look bleaker, Democratic grumbling about President Obama is growing louder.

One Democratic senator tells CNN congressional Democrats are “baffled,” and another senior Democratic source tells CNN members of the president’s own party are still “frustrated” that they’re not getting more specific direction from him on health care.

“We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues. Instead of sending out his people and saying the president isn’t ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support – especially on how to pay for his health reform bill,” a senior Democratic congressional source tells CNN.

Gee. That sounds familiar.