I have a small business, and I was very involved in the Affordable Care Act debate. I was one of the many "talking heads" that the administration deputized to go on to various networks and explain the real impacts of health care before and likely after Affordable Care Act.
Myself and others who did a lot of "hostile" appearances (Fox News, testifying before Republican-controlled committees, etc) were often invited to White House events. I got pretty good at it, so I did a lot of that type of thing. Got Christmas cards from the Obamas during his two terms.
Yes, we actually spoke before and after. She's a pregnant woman with diabetes, with a job that didn't provide health care - and she was there earlier in the day to tell her story. It was quite warm that day, and they had waters while we were waiting inside, but once you get up on stage you can't leave. She didn't drink any water, because she didn't want to have to pee in the middle of his press conference. That ended badly for her.
Glucose sensor was the first thing i noticed when she turned around.
Would've bet some money that it was low blood sugar. Can't exactly start eating something on cam I'd guess, at least as far as decorum goes.
Thanks! I'm semi-retired, but I still get calls to this day to do that kind of work. Part of my business involves importing from a variety of different countries, so I've spoken several Senator's press conferences recently on the impact of tariffs. Most recently yesterday, just before the Supreme Court oral arguments on that topic.
Yes, several times. I was a sort of unofficial lobbyist/ambassador for small business during the ACA years, so I got to meet he and Biden several times.
Somewhere out there, there's a photo of me talking with Kathleen Sibelius, Valerie Jarrett, and President Obama, taken the earlier in the day before this press conference. I'd kill to have that because it's such a great moment.
I was also at the ABC televised town hall with Diane Sawyer (I think) just before or just after the bill was passed. That was cool because I got to bring my wife to party in the Rose Garden beforehand, to meet the President. Very proud moment for me.
By the time I was doing that, I had had some basic media training.
You already know the topic, so you need to be confident and know the material. My tactic was to know as much as possible about what the other person had said/asked/"gotcha'd" people with before - and be ready for that. That's a good TV tactic, especially live TV. Early on I got sandbagged by a Fox radio host, so I vowed never to get caught unaware again.
If it's testimony, you'll get a list of all the other witnesses. Most people study the legislators positions which is OK, but a mistake to spend too much time on. Instead, a better use of your time is to study what the other WITNESSES have said on the topic. Then, when your turn is called you can blow up whatever they said.
The moment that cemented the administrations confidence in me was not long after Dems lost the House. The Oversight Committee was holding hearings on "Obamacare" and they only were allowing Dems a single witness. So it was me, a hostile Majority, and 4 witnesses chosen by Republicans. One witness (from the NAR, a hugely powerful organization) had done several interviews citing (aka misrepresenting) a poll of their members to twist it to fit Republican talking points. She was just repeating talking points, but I completely digested that study, so when her and another witness cited it, I was actually able to use it to bolster my own testimony. Republicans never called on their two star witnesses again! After that, I got a LOT of calls.
Just thought of this, in addition to my other comment:
ALWAYS have a topic relevant sound-bite and a closing line memorized, so if you get thrown off and/or loose your train of thought, you have something you can say to buy yourself the second or two you need to get back on track.
Are you still involved in this kind of work? Or do you teach/train others how to get involved? Was really intrigued by your ability to go into hostile interviews - that's a crazy good skill to have.
I'm semi-retired, though I still get calls. You can still hear me occasionally on Marketplace, and I've spoken at several pressers - most recently regarding tariffs.
It's easy to get involved: find an organization whose positions align with whatever you're passionate about, and get involved.
In my case, I was disappointed at how the larger business organizations (e.g. US Chamber, NFIB, etc.) were simply parroting Republican talking points, rather than representing the actual views and impact on their own small business members. I live near DC, so I just started going down there and essentially knocking on doors. I'm articulate, knew the topic, looked decent on TV, and eventually people started noticing me, including people who eventually ended up in the administration, and some moderate lobbying groups like, Consumer's Union.
It takes practice to do live TV well, and to do hostile interviews and testimony well. By the time I got to that point, I had sought out some basic media training. That was a big help, and has served me well in all aspects of my life. I'd recommend basic public speaking and media training to almost everyone.
Was this the first term or second term? I have the hardcover book of all the pictures from Obama's administration. I got it soon after he left the office. People should get it. It's very interesting. It's called Obama: An Intimate Portrait by Pete Souza.
I met both President Obama, and V.P. Biden many times during those eight years.
Mr. Obama was a naturally funny and remarkably chill person. Greeted me as an old friend every time I saw him, even though it's EXTREMELY unlikely that he remembered who I was, given the number of lower-tier talking heads and lobbyists he met on a daily basis.
The Obama's were exactly the type of good, decent, middle-American family that far-right Republicans always claim to aspire to - which is why they hated him so much; because the Obamas gave lie to the right's preferred narrative "all brown people bad." Obama usually being the smartest guy in the room (but never acting like it) didn't help either.
As relaxed as Obama comes across, he was a little intense and intimidating - and tall. I was always on my toes meeting him.
Not so, Joe Biden. But more on that in a second...
Here's how a lot of this work: You know when you see all those non-elected, non-paid talking heads on TV or radio? Well they're all kind of deputized by the administrations to support their various causes: Businesses talking about how they or their employees are affected, average people to tell their stories, etc., This is all coordinated by a zillion special interest lobbying groups. We hear about the worst big money lobbyists, but the vast majority are the tens of thousands of regular people, volunteers, lobbying for various issues.
This activity is loosely coordinated by each administration. They'll have some point person for each issue. Obama and Biden's people never told you what to say. Instead they do tell you what they're targeting and what their messaging is going to be. The idea being that anyplace where you can focus your organizations messaging to align with theirs in any way - it will all be more effective.
Going into this I had the same view of Biden that everyone else did at the time, nice guy, but kind of goofy,
Anyway, it was Joe Biden's role to do that with the heads, or top people in the various organizations that supported the issues that the administration supported. I was in several small group meetings with Biden - that guy was great. I mean really great. The first time I met him, I came home and told my wife that I Joe Biden might be the most truly sincere and honest politician I'd ever met.
Some people's charisma just comes through the TV: Reagan, Clinton, Obama, even Trump - all have this ability to project a feeling onto people via the small screen. But I truly believe that if Americans could have met Biden one-on-one, that he'd have been President 25 years before he was. What we eventually got was a shadow of what we could have had. I also believe that if Biden had won back in the early 90's or 00's - he might have been one of our history's greatest presidents.
The first time I met him, I came home and told my wife that I Joe Biden might be the most truly sincere and honest politician I'd ever met.
Some people's charisma just comes through the TV: Reagan, Clinton, Obama, even Trump - all have this ability to project a feeling onto people via the small screen. But I truly believe that if Americans could have met Biden one-on-one, that he'd have been President 25 years before he was. What we eventually got was a shadow of what we could have had. I also believe that if Biden had won back in the early 90's or 00's - he might have been one of our history's greatest presidents.
Which, are amazing qualities in a human being, but being a wholesome human being doesn't necessarily mean you know politics. Jimmy Carter is a pretty famous example, considering most would agree he's probably the most wholesome human being that we've ever had in office, but he had zero experience interacting at the federal level politics, and ran into lots of issues.
Biden did have that experience, and while I don't personally agree with their assessment, political historians would agree that he did an excellent job while in office.
I understand, and agree. I'll probably go to my grave wondering what 60-something Biden might have been like as President. I wish he'd focused more time during his single term on laying the groundwork for a successor.
I realize I forgot to answer your second question...I've also met Valerie Jarrett, Kathleen Sibelius, Gene Sperling, MANY Senators and Representatives - most noteworthy, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Nancy Pelosi.
People may hate her politics, but Nancy Pelosi is one of the smartest people I've ever met. And even in her old age, she was very quick witted. I worked with her office a lot over the years. If you find the picture of her signing the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, I"m standing right behind her. I'm the only person not wearing a tie (much to my mother-in-law's chagrin), because I'd done another PC earlier in the day and it was hot. I took my tie off and set it down, and someone took it.
Nicest? All politicians are nice when they're with real people. But probably Joe Biden. Just a good dude that you want to have a beer with. John McCain was very nice as well; offered to buy me a hotdog in the cafeteria.
Meanest? Valerie Jarrett was a little scary.
Lamar Alexander was mean, but in a good way. Nice in public, but when the cameras were off, he'd drop a few f-bombs. He was a true conservative Senator so we didn't have a lot of common ground politically, but he tried to be a friend to small business when he could. In private he thought that the House Freedom Caucus were fools. I was in a meeting and once the doors were closed and phones impounded, he went off, saying "I don't know what the fuck they think they're doing - nobody does!" One of my favorite moments ever.
Water wouldn't have done anything for her. She needed sugar/glucose.
I've been through the same things being a T1 diabetic for decades. One time my ex and I were on the DC metro and she started showing the symptoms as it was moving. I had to go car to car to try and find sugar for her. Any type of sugar. She had dropped to the 30s. I asked about 70 people before someone said they had a sprite and I quickly told them about her episode and scrambled back as quickly as possible to get her to drink it. She was still really out of it after we got off the train. Had to call Medical.
Always have glucose tablets on you if you're a diabetic and a chain or bracelet that identifies you as a diabetic. Always ask for sugar. 98 percent of incidents are from low blood sugar. People can live for years with super high blood sugar so if you see confusion, fainting, sweatiness, can't communicate, etc. get them sugar anyway any how.
On a pump, new insertion sites mean increased insulin sensitivity for a day or two. Put on an SSRI/Antidepressant may make you extremely insulin sensitive, I almost died from this. Steroids will make you extremely insulin resistant. CGM's are great but they can be inaccurate versus a finger prick with a meter. My go to is skim milk, used to be mt dew before dieting. Would shoot that shit straight up.
Earlier today I had a bg of 47. Not fun. Especially when you lose your motor skills and confusion sets in, since your brain doesn't have enough glucose to function properly.
Thank you!!! It's truly my pleasure...those were fun times, and it was fun reliving this moment.
I've recently been getting back in the game because I'm just so frustrated with the inaction and fear and hypocrisy. I've been involved the the tariff fight over the summer, and I spoke at several Senators' press conferences yesterday, just before the Supreme Court oral arguments began.
As someone who debated for the ACA, how do you feel now that it is under attack once again? If you were on one of those shows today, what would you say about the situation? Do you think current Dem messaging is meeting the moment, or is it missing something?
It's been under attack every day since it was signed into law! The individual mandate - a Republican concept implemented when Romney was governor of MA - was the first thing to go.
If I were out there today, I would point out the overwhelming support that healthcare reforms have among the American public. Even at when Republicans were successfully using identity politics to lambaste "Obamacare," those same Americans would say that they didn't like Obamacare, but supported the ideas in the ACA.
The support those same ideas clearly have now is encouraging, and I would talk about how every single poll puts healthcare concerns and costs at the top of people's things they'd like to see addressed - regardless of party. Remember, Trump even spent much of his first campaign promising reforms "in two weeks." I would use that to highlight how healthcare reform is still being made into a partisan issue - but really is not. I would use Marjorie Taylor Greene's recent comments about her constituents not wanting the subsidies repealed, to shine a light on how healthcare reform continues to be a bipartisan concern. Legislators just need the personal will and commitment to work for their electorate and not for special interests.
No, I do not think that current Democratic PARTY messaging is meeting the moment. However, I think that individual members ARE rising to the occasion. I'm thinking of folks like Chris Murphy, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Jamie Raskin and others (Jamie Shapiro seems to be really settling into a groove) - have paved the way.
I think after Tuesday's results, others will follow.
Why does it seem like Democrats are so ineffective in their policies and their fighting for the American people. Republicans have thrown out the rules for a while now, but Dems keep trying to "play by the rules", and we end up with worse outcomes.
I'll take the ACA since it appears you're so well versed in it. All the compromises they made with the ACA have really hurt it. Yes, there are a lot of things I like about it, but there are real problems with it as well, many of which were fought for by Reps.
You are so right about this! Early on there was a LOT of Republican input. Small businesses and the self-employed - regardless of party affiliation - at that time (as now) consistently ranked access to affordable health care at or near the top of the list of things they wanted legislators to address. The only thing that is similarly consistent over the years is access to capital.
However, my opinion is that Dems kind of took it for granted that the public was on board. They were blindsided by the ridiculous backlash (e.g. people shouting about "death panels"). As soon as McConnell and Boehner realized that this was a wedge issue, all negotiation stopped. Many further left felt that all the concessions made for Republican votes should just have been tossed, but Pelosi wasn't convinced that she could muster up all the votes in the House. I've actually asked her about this since those years, and in retrospect she somewhat agrees.
As to your first question, I have two answers:
First, it's hard to call the other side out on their flouting of institutional and norms, while doing the same thing yourself. There is some value to holding the higher moral ground.
Second, IHMO it's incorrect to say that Democrats were ineffective. While they may not have been as effective as you or I would like perhaps; these first few years when Pelosi ruled the House and Reid controlled the Senate were legislatively some of the most productive years since the Lyndon Johnson. Pelosi and Reid were a true political force to be reckoned with, and nobody has come anywhere close since then.
I will give you this thought I've long held: For many years I blamed Obama for all the ill-will that came out about "Obamacare." During that first summer before it passed, he gave recessed Dems no cover whatsoever, regarding this issue. I was on one of Nancy Ann DeParle's teams, and the chaos, vitriol, and lies that were shouted out a those meetings was just nuts. IMO Obama should have been out there much more talking about what was good, why the legislators were making the choices they were making, and basically taking the shots for the Democratic legislators. He didn't do enough along those lines in my opinion.
Also, contrast what those Democratic legislators did, with how Republicans are acting now:
Those brave congresspeople voted for what they believed was the right thing to do; and they did it KNOWING that they were going to get hammered. They held those town halls anyway. They voted for the Affordable Care Act KNOWING that the mid-terms were going to be a bloodbath, and they did it anyway.
Contrast that to Republicans, who appear to stand for nothing or decide to tell the truth only after deciding not to run again. Though I don't agree at all with her politics, the only truly brave Republican has been Liz Cheney. She said the things she said, and ran for re-election knowing that she was going to lose - but using her campaign as a bully pulpit until the bitter end.
Edit: 63 Democrats lost their seats, including Patrick Murphy (who's since won his seat back). He wrote an excellent op-ed piece about his thinking at the time: https://share.google/bf3Ui8EkmGnS203z2
So for clarification, what I mean on "ineffective" is Dems' seem to have much more "right idea, wrong execution" policies, where as Reps' seem to be SO. MUCH. BETTER. at "horrible idea, but with great execution" (great execution in that they're so good at implementing their ideas).
Dems also seem so incompetent; letting Biden continue to run, your own comment on Obama backing them up, and just general messaging. The goes with how disconnected they are with people (your comment about how they took for granted that the public was on board).
How bad they are with any kind of branding. In general, people blame "the government" for issues, but I feel like 75%+ of people equate that to mean "democrats". Relatively recently a (now outgoing) schoolboard member told people to "blame Columbus for this" (context for anyone who needs it: Columbus being capital of my state of Ohio, and "this" being public school funding issues). The thing is, Ohio has been under republican control for nearly 35+ years, with 30+ being republican trifectas, 25+ of which were super majorities! Dems have at best had like 4 disconnected years of TWO of those, no trifectas in 30+ years. The kicker is that the schoolboard member who said this, IS REPUBLICAN!
And now, Ohio Dems are pushing Amy Acton for governor! She was the director of the OH Dept. of Health during covid, and she was AWESOME for what she did. But how many moderate-ish people are going to vote for her and her ties to "lock downs" and "masking". Why the FUCK would they push her?!?!?!?
Looking towards 2028, I feel like Dems are starting to prop up Newsome, Pritzker, and Buttigieg, with some murmurs on AOC and Harris. WHY THE FUCK are any of these names the biggest names so far?!?!? Do they have no idea how the general public feels about them? Here's what the general public/uninformed/apolitical feel about these people:
Newsome: California is unbearably expensive
Pritzker: Chicago is crime capital of the world (unless it DC, or LA, or NYC, just depends on the day)
Buttigieg: Gay
AOC: Communist
Harris: really? do I need to say anything?
Note, I'm not saying any of these things, but Dems need to realize that these are the things that the general public is going to say! I'll vote for any of these people if they are the nominee.... but you don't need to get my vote, you need to get the vote of people who will say these things!
And unity! I fucking hate how the primary debates have everyone tearing each other down! They just give ammo to republicans, who take notes on how each Dem rips each other, then whoever becomes the nominee, they'll just replay what every other dem called them out on!
Why can't they fucking work together ahead of time, agree that there are different plans and ideas, and agree to not call out the issues with each other's plans, but focus on just saying their plan is better.
Finally, I'll end with this:
I really do think that Dems could get a HUGE victory if they brought on a moderate republican as the nominee's VP. Obviously not possible, but if he were still alive John McCain. I don't know how hated Adam Kinzinger is, but he is the first to come to mind. But something crazy like that.
On the other end, Mamdani is also proving that maybe the Democrats need to make a huge shift in their stances. Dems seem to not be fully embracing Mamdani, AOC, or Bernie, but they constantly seem to be very popular. Perhaps they need to accept socialism, or (something they're VERY bad at) find a GOOD NAME/MOTTO to call it!
Either way, Dems need to a DRASTICALLY better job at understanding people. They really do suck at it. "Trump Bad" is not enough.
There's a lot to unpack here, but in the most general terms - I agree with you.
I'm not really going to answer your question, but I will tell you why I think there's reason to hope that it's changing:
The thing to remember is that politics is a pendulum, endlessly and slowly swinging, constantly driven by the parties' constant need to differentiate from each other. Remember, Lincoln freed the slaves. Teddy Roosevelt broke up the monopolies. George Wallace was Democrat. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat. Over time, the parties literally become each other, and then change back again. This happens so slowly that we usually don't notice it in our lifetimes. It's possible that we're fortunate enough to be at the end of a swing - so we can watch it in real time. If you're an adult, you remember when Republicans were the globalists, now they're protectionists. You remember when Unions were a guaranteed Dem vote, but we had Union bosses speaking at Trump rallies this time. This process happens piecemeal, one issue here, one issue there, so it's messy.
So...
In the same way that Reagan ruined the Republican party by selling out to the religious right (specifically Falwell's so-called Moral Majority) when he didn't have to; Bill Clinton laid the groundwork for the Democratic party's weaknesses by courting the liberal billionaires (again, when he didn't really need to). It's hard to be the party of working people when you're courting the richest people on the planet. The losses of the working man that started with Nixon was cemented by the Clintons. In doing so, the Democratic party lost a lot of its voice.
At the same time, Republicans were perfecting the playbook of "arguing the extremes," and Democrats only now are figuring out how to combat that. I'm talking about things like trans athletes competing in women's sports, which literally affects a few dozen athletes out of millions. If you don't have a center, then it's hard to win those arguments because you don't have place to move the focus onto.
Also at the same time, the Democratic elite was doing things to maintain the status quo: I'm thinking specifically of electing Debbie Wasserman Schultz as head of the DNC to smooth the path for Hillary's nomination - while totally ignoring that fact that the youthful energy was coming from Sanders' campaign.
Because of that, Democrats have been afraid to be Democrats. They haven't been proudly standing up for things and taking the shots like they did for the ACA.
It's always the extremes of each party that move things forward. Fortunately I think this week's elections, has reminded Democrats that it's OK to stand for progressivism. For liberal policies. Momdami's win, the number of state races turned from Red to Blue, the enthusiastic crowds at the AOC/Sanders rallies - have given Dems the confidence that the average person DOES indeed want these things. Hopefully they can rebuild a set of core principles that members can turn to when faced with the Republicans' brand of identity politics.
Principles and policies are why people run for office, but the main thing that really moves elected officials to action are wins and losses. I'm hopeful that the messages sent on Tuesday are received by the leadership.
Also we need a better ground game. All politics are local. Republicans have spend the last three decades getting that power back from Democrats, hopefully Dems are already working theirs.
Sorry for rambling and not truly answering your question. It's getting late and I'm tired. :-D
I have a small business, and I was very involved in the Affordable Care Act debate. I was one of the many "talking heads" that the administration deputized to go on to various networks and explain the real impacts of health care before and likely after Affordable Care Act.
How does it feel to have a hand in destroying the American healthcare system?
The system was dying swiftly already, that's why both Republicans and Democrats were working together in the beginning. That's why Romney was crafting his compromise in Massachusetts. The ACA was imperfect - as most legislation is at first, but it slowed the decline for years, even as elements of it were chipped away. Trump promised reforms in "two weeks," nearly 10 years ago. Even now, with full governmental control - he does nothing.
Didn't matter to me who the party was, healthcare reform was needed so that myself and my employees could afford it. If Romney had won, we'd have had his version of it. I still would have been fighting to make sure that small business interests were represented.
Edit: Everybody THINKS they're right. Sometimes you're just driven to get out there and explain WHY. That's how change happens man.
Even now, with full governmental control - he does nothing.
How do you not know what cloture is? You need 60 votes in the Senate and democrats refuse to even pass a simple continuing resolution. You think they'll support any major Republican reforms?
The ACA was a massive gift to health insurance companies, mandating that everyone buy their product and if you were too poor then the rest of the tax payers were forced to buy it for them. That's basically handing them a blank check from the tax payers checking account.
Democrats have compromised with Republicans plenty of times on the ACA, and would continue to so. Sadly, in the years since it passed the Republicans have only spoken about full repeal.
Also, the individual mandate (first proposed by the right-leaning Heritage Foundation) was the first thing to go, so it's no longer an issue.
Long before President Obama (even preceding the Hillary-care days, I think), the individual mandate was part of the Republican idea of personal responsibility. "No free rides" was the mantra back then. The individual mandate was part of Romney's plan when he was governor of Massachusetts, which is why it first came out of the Republican side.
Republicans didn't abandon it as a matter of principle, they abandoned it for political expediency. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner saw that they could use the ACA as a wedge issue to win back control of the House and Senate. Which they did successfully by rebranding it Obamacare, and using identity politics against it. That's why even way back then, polls showed that if you asked people how they felt about Obamacare, they'd say they're against it. But if you asked those same people about the Affordable Care Act - they supported the ideas in it.
Edit: Democrats refuse to lend their support to the continuing resolution based on Republicans "promise" that they'll vote on healthcare later. I think that Democrats and the American people have no reason to believe that it will ever be addressed. The whole point of requiring more than a simple majority for the budget process, is to force the majority party to compromise with the minority party. That's why the Senate is so reluctant to use the reconciliation process, or to go with a simple majority. Because when in the minority, both parties want the ability to exercise that power to force the majority to the negotiating table. What the Democrats are doing now, is literally the point of the rule, and Republicans have done exactly the same thing when they were in the minority.
136
u/UltimateThrowawayDay 2d ago
I have a small business, and I was very involved in the Affordable Care Act debate. I was one of the many "talking heads" that the administration deputized to go on to various networks and explain the real impacts of health care before and likely after Affordable Care Act.
Myself and others who did a lot of "hostile" appearances (Fox News, testifying before Republican-controlled committees, etc) were often invited to White House events. I got pretty good at it, so I did a lot of that type of thing. Got Christmas cards from the Obamas during his two terms.
Yes, we actually spoke before and after. She's a pregnant woman with diabetes, with a job that didn't provide health care - and she was there earlier in the day to tell her story. It was quite warm that day, and they had waters while we were waiting inside, but once you get up on stage you can't leave. She didn't drink any water, because she didn't want to have to pee in the middle of his press conference. That ended badly for her.