Oops, the President let Republicans speak about healthcare

Well, things did not turn out as bad for Republicans at the Health Care Summit as a lot of people thought they would. Jennifer Rubin:

Obama then essentially failed to pin the blame on the Republicans, who generally seemed a bit more reasonable and genial than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and company. (Political Rule No. 1: Get inept opponents.) As Gerson sums up: “The whole exercise, in short, was an ambush. But the quarry, it seems, got away.”

Jay Nordlinger:

Let me try something out on you: This health-care summit was a bad idea for the Democrats for this reason: They have long benefited from a perception — a perception greatly abetted by the media: The Republicans don’t care about health care, they don’t know about health care, they are the Party of No. All the ideas and caring are on the Democratic side.

It is not so, and it has never been so. And now everybody knows it.

Republicans were well-prepared (in contrast to the "question time" after the State of the Union when President Obama made a surprise challenge to televise the "conversation"). Best Video here.

Democrats are always taking a risk when they let Republicans speak directly to the public, unfiltered by the media. Obama and the Republicans seemed reasonable. Like last year had never happened. But appearances can be deceiving.

For the Health Care Summit, President Obama set the agenda, set the terms for the exchange, spoke longer than anyone else, and he had posted his bill on line just a few hours before the summit, so Republicans would not have much time to prepare. But he still acted irritated when Republicans said things he didn't like. Though he seemed competent (well, most of the time), people are noticing another side to him, more and more. And many people found the summit to be boring. Partisan posturing continues.

Bottom line: Obama doubles down on health care reform. Bipartisanship DOES mean surrender to him, or something pretty close to surrender.

I think Tunku Varadarajan captured the essence of the summit best. Follow the link, read the whole thing, then see if you agree with his wish. I'm not sure I do:

What became clear in the long hours through which the summit meandered was that Obama was the best Democrat on display. . .

The meeting wound down forlornly, with Obama attempting to enumerate issues that the two sides had in common. But there could be no escape from the one, fundamental difference that divides the two sides: The Democrats want this bill and the Republicans don’t. That—and the latter’s preference for market solutions and the former’s rejection of them—ensured that the summit was a total waste of our time and Obama's.

After this six-and-a-half-hour civics lesson, let us now return to the Leninist mode: that of crushing the opposition. I'm not keen on health-care reform, but I do wish that Obama and his friends had hammered the thing through in its full, robust, vital form, with all the "radical" logic built in. They had the political momentum and mandate and yet got stuck—as they got stuck today—tossing out or diluting all the elements that had made it the (supposedly) progressive thing it was. I so much prefer it when the winning side does what it likes, unapologetically. There’s honesty in that, and dignity. And the other side respects you more, too.

On the other hand, if the Democrats are going to be theatical, maybe they should prepare a little better to be theatrical.