The House GOP thought they were being clever in inviting Obama up to their lobbyist-sponsored strategy retreat. They thought they were being even more clever in taking up the White House’s Br’er Rabbit offer to televise the 90 minute discussion. They were sure that the opportunity to stand up, preface their remarks with simplistic talking points and baseless assertions, then ask a “are you still beating your wife” kind of question, would make for great campaign fodder.
Result: the GOP got their rhetorical hats handed to them.
Now, the full video is 90 minutes long — worth listening to, but still a lengthy investment of time. The transcript is here, and a more highlighted video and link site is here.
The point is not only that Obama debated effectively on policy, but that he didn’t do so by blasting back and forth with dueling talking points. Instead, he reframed the discussion, pointing out that the lengthy prefaces by each House questioner were full of assertions he disagreed with (which he then addressed), and that, beyond that, the general tone of the questioning was just the sort of thing that was leading to failure in Washington. For example, to Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX):
Jeb, with all due respect, I’ve just got to take this last question as an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.
Exactly. Not only is accusing the president of running some massive “Bolshevist plot” to take over our precious bodily fluids untrue, but it then makes it impossible for the GOP to turn around and work with the White House, even if they wanted to. Not only has the GOP gone all in to make this a win-lose situation, they’ve painted themselves into a political corner in doing so, and the entire country is the victim for it.
How can you tell Obama scored and won? Fox News, alone among other channels showing the program, cut away before it was over so that they could run some talking heads criticizing Obama for lecturing to the House members.
The GOP are now understandably dismayed by having given Obama a chance to show them up. I have no doubt they will think twice before again going into a televised debate with a law professor, where he has the opportunity to answer with more than a 15 second sound bite.
And maybe that’s a key as to why we haven’t seen this Obama — calmly making his points, demolishing or reframing those of his opponents, and then noting how their whole attitude is part of the problem — over the last year. Because the only time we get to see him is either (a) giving a speech (which he does well, but is then bushwacked by the obligatory Opposition Response who like to make him out as some pedantic lecturer), or (b) talking in sound bites on the evening news. Obama does nuance, he musters his points, he makes them carefully, deliberately, and effectively. That sort of thing doesn’t work in the current media.
Anyway, some very good stuff. Obama’s outreach for bipartisanship is almost certainly futile, but if he can continue to present in this fashion, then it become an outreach of strength, not of weakness, a sign of leadership, not wishy-washy compromise. And it puts the GOP on notice that being the Party of No is as much a danger for them as it is for the country.
Would that the Democrats would learn from our President. We could have the public option next week…
Campaigning and legislating arguably require different skill sets. Skilled campaigners might get themselves elected in spite of their lack of skill as legislators. I wonder if part of the reason for our legislatures’ difficulty in doing the people’s business as they should is an overabundance of people who are skilled campaigners but unskilled legislators. (I mean to apply this question to both state and federal legislatures all across the country, and I don’t think anything here applies strictly to one party.)
Certainly something to that, dave. It’s like the difference between being able to interview well and being able to perform a job well. In theory, that gets resolved by subsequent elections, but once in, incumbents have a distinct advantage, both in terms of money and publicity, and with support of their party against primary challenges.
Funniest reflection I’ve heard about this so far; I told my son how the House GOP thought they could embarrass the President on-camera (in effect picking a rhetorical fight with a top Harvard lawyer). He responded; “I don’t pick swordfights with fencing experts, either.”
Well, when you get used to working in an environment where you have a friendly media outlet, where you can control your public appearances, where everything is set up for making the pithy soundbite and nobody’s willing to to say, “Hey, you’re not making sense, you’re being hypocritical, you’re making assertions that don’t mesh with reality” … then, yeah, it’s going to be a shock when you actually go up against someone at least as smart, glib, and informed as you are, and who’s quite willing to demonstrate it.
If the GOP does this again, I suspect they will be much, much better prepared.