The-queen-of-obamaland -

[TGHusker]

I didn't want to hi-jack Carl's ObamaCare thread with this side note topic.

 

1.Is the roll out a symptom of govt incompetence or lack of leadership at HHS or by our President, himself?

 

2. Should Sebelius be fired, resign, or as Pat notes below and in the link remain as a testimony of govt inefficiencies / incompetence?

 

3. With many Dems now stating that ACA should be delayed (individual mandate) due to this mess, is there some vindication for Ted Cruz or other repubs calling for a delay before the gov't shut down?

 

 

Pat Buchanan adds this opinion.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/the-queen-of-obamaland/

 

A couple of quotes :

 

Republicans are clamoring for Sebelius’s firing.

Herewith, a dissent. Why not leave her right where she is?

After all, Sebelius’s continuance testifies more eloquently than any attack ad just how far Obama’s beliefs about government and political philosophy are beyond the Middle American mainstream.

In most great U.S. corporations, if an executive had three years to roll out the product on which the company’s future might depend, and delivered this debacle, he would be gone. Panic would ensue. Emergency meetings of the board would be held to determine if more heads should roll and who should be brought in to save the company.

Outside of government, people routinely pay for their mistakes. Inside, there is often no penalty, no price, no punishment for failure.

To Obama, a mess that has members of his own party calling for suspending Obamacare for a year is just the result of “glitches.”

Still good enough for government work.

 

 

Sebelius remains at her post despite manifest incompetence for reasons both ideological and political. She is a pro-choice Catholic, a feminist, an early Obamaite, a crony of the president, an apparatchik of the Party of Government. She is a queen in Obamaland.

Like many of his generation, Obama himself is a skilled verbalist. He talks and reads teleprompter well. As for executive, managerial and operational skills, however, upon what ground would he stand to dismiss Sebelius?

He was himself clueless as to the extent and severity of the problems in his signature legislation. Two weeks after the Benghazi massacre, he was still parroting the Susan Rice line about anti-Islamic videos, which the CIA knew within hours had had nothing to do with the murder of Ambassador Stevens.

Obama had no idea for three years his IRS might be slow-walking tea-party applications for tax exemptions. He wasn’t in the loop about Eric Holder’s phone taps on Fox News or the Associated Press.

Nobody told him. The president has not been more deeply implicated in the scandals since re-election because he could credibly say, “How was I supposed to know what was going on?”

Sebelius remains at her post despite manifest incompetence for reasons both ideological and political. She is a pro-choice Catholic, a feminist, an early Obamaite, a crony of the president, an apparatchik of the Party of Government. She is a queen in Obamaland.

Like many of his generation, Obama himself is a skilled verbalist. He talks and reads teleprompter well. As for executive, managerial and operational skills, however, upon what ground would he stand to dismiss Sebelius?

He was himself clueless as to the extent and severity of the problems in his signature legislation. Two weeks after the Benghazi massacre, he was still parroting the Susan Rice line about anti-Islamic videos, which the CIA knew within hours had had nothing to do with the murder of Ambassador Stevens.

Obama had no idea for three years his IRS might be slow-walking tea-party applications for tax exemptions. He wasn’t in the loop about Eric Holder’s phone taps on Fox News or the Associated Press.

Nobody told him. The president has not been more deeply implicated in the scandals since re-election because he could credibly say, “How was I supposed to know what was going on?”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/the-queen-of-obamaland/#B4tsbbBySiAfYW4r.99

Sebelius remains at her post despite manifest incompetence for reasons both ideological and political. She is a pro-choice Catholic, a feminist, an early Obamaite, a crony of the president, an apparatchik of the Party of Government. She is a queen in Obamaland.

Like many of his generation, Obama himself is a skilled verbalist. He talks and reads teleprompter well. As for executive, managerial and operational skills, however, upon what ground would he stand to dismiss Sebelius?

He was himself clueless as to the extent and severity of the problems in his signature legislation. Two weeks after the Benghazi massacre, he was still parroting the Susan Rice line about anti-Islamic videos, which the CIA knew within hours had had nothing to do with the murder of Ambassador Stevens.

Obama had no idea for three years his IRS might be slow-walking tea-party applications for tax exemptions. He wasn’t in the loop about Eric Holder’s phone taps on Fox News or the Associated Press.

Nobody told him. The president has not been more deeply implicated in the scandals since re-election because he could credibly say, “How was I supposed to know what was going on?”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/the-queen-of-obamaland/#B4tsbbBySiAfYW4r.99

[/left]

[carlfense]

1.Is the roll out a symptom of govt incompetence or lack of leadership at HHS or by our President, himself?

What do you mean by lack of leadership?

 

2. Should Sebelius be fired, resign, or as Pat notes below and in the link remain as a testimony of govt inefficiencies / incompetence?

I doubt that those are the only two options . . . but I don't really care what happens to Sebelius. Presumably, President Obama wants the person most likely to successfully implement his health care policy in the position. If that's Sebelius, great. If it's someone else, great.

 

The only people who are likely to care are: 1. Sebelius herself, or 2. someone trying to score political points.

 

3. With many Dems now stating that ACA should be delayed (individual mandate) due to this mess, is there some vindication for Ted Cruz or other repubs calling for a delay before the gov't shut down?

No.

 

 

 

 

As an aside, WND will rot your mind.

[knapplc]

I really need to start reading some fringe blogs so I can post their mind-vomit here. Makes for some really great threads.

[BigRedBuster]

I get so sick and tired of the general public saying "their head needs to roll because if they were in the private sector th buck stops at the top and heads would roll".....well.....BS.

 

Anytime an issue comes up with anything in a huge organization, it can be caused by many things and some might be outside the power of who ever is at the top of said organization. The real leadership shows up when those problems arise and we see how they are fixed or dealt with.

 

So...asking for Sebelius's head is just plain idiotic and nothing more than a knee jerk reaction by the opposing political party trying to gain favor with their base.

 

Now...if 6 months, a year or maybe two years from now it is still in shambles...then leadership changes need to be discussed. Until then.....get over it and let people do their jobs that they were assigned under this huge bill.

[carlfense]

I get so sick and tired of the general public saying "their head needs to roll because if they were in the private sector th buck stops at the top and heads would roll".....well.....BS.

 

Anytime an issue comes up with anything in a huge organization, it can be caused by many things and some might be outside the power of who ever is at the top of said organization. The real leadership shows up when those problems arise and we see how they are fixed or dealt with.

 

So...asking for Sebelius's head is just plain idiotic and nothing more than a knee jerk reaction by the opposing political party trying to gain favor with their base.

 

Now...if 6 months, a year or maybe two years from now it is still in shambles...then leadership changes need to be discussed. Until then.....get over it and let people do their jobs that they were assigned under this huge bill.

+1.

 

Particularly the last couple lines.

[TGHusker]

Carl regarding WND rotting a person's mind:

My only link to it is Pat B's eml. I like Pat for his frankness. Don't always agree wt him - but he has spoken out pretty hard against GWB and other neocons in the same way he speaks out against some of Obama's policies. And yes, WND is on the fringe on many issues. It will only rot your mind if that is your only diet. I use to listen to nothing but talk radio and the negativity began to eat me up - you become what you think and like you say Carl, if you just think on the rotten - that is what you become.

 

Carl's question: What do I mean by lack of leadership? My answer: Whoever was responsible to make sure the roll out of this signature legislation was successful. If you are Harry S Truman - that would be himself. If you are Pres Obama - most likely his HHS secretary or an underling.

[TGHusker]

I get so sick and tired of the general public saying "their head needs to roll because if they were in the private sector th buck stops at the top and heads would roll".....well.....BS.

 

Anytime an issue comes up with anything in a huge organization, it can be caused by many things and some might be outside the power of who ever is at the top of said organization. The real leadership shows up when those problems arise and we see how they are fixed or dealt with.

 

So...asking for Sebelius's head is just plain idiotic and nothing more than a knee jerk reaction by the opposing political party trying to gain favor with their base.

 

Now...if 6 months, a year or maybe two years from now it is still in shambles...then leadership changes need to be discussed. Until then.....get over it and let people do their jobs that they were assigned under this huge bill.

I can agree with this. I think the Pres or some one in the admin said that this will be a 6 week fix - bringing in the A team now to fix it. Let's see how it goes.

[TGHusker]

I really need to start reading some fringe blogs so I can post their mind-vomit here. Makes for some really great threads.

Anything to stir up the mud to create discussion. Knapp you might find out you agree wt Pat on some issues - he speaks out just as hard against the neocons as well. As I mentioned to Carl, WND can be on the fringe but sometimes it I like to see the fringe just to remind me where right of center is. Just as I hope my left of center friends don't go far, far left, I sure don't want to end on the far far right.

[carlfense]

Carl's question: What do I mean by lack of leadership? My answer: Whoever was responsible to make sure the roll out of this signature legislation was successful. If you are Harry S Truman - that would be himself. If you are Pres Obama - most likely his HHS secretary or an underling.

I wasn't asking which leader you were referring to. I was asking what specific action you're referring to with the "leadership" meme.

 

If only Obama would lead! He needs to quit calling for meetings, giving speeches, campaigning, etc. and LEAD. It's probably the most empty minded criticism that I can think of. Definitely right up there with "stop dividing."

[zoogs]

I'm not sure where the blame goes but can anyone really think of anything that was rolled out for the first time and it just worked, no hitches, no problems, nada? At this scale especially?

 

The ACA is also owned by more than just Obama. It'd be more accurate to call it Obamacare if it didn't have to go through compromises (as it should) to satisfy Congress. I guess the technical issues are not related to that though.

[carlfense]

I'm not sure where the blame goes but can anyone really think of anything that was rolled out for the first time and it just worked, no hitches, no problems, nada? At this scale especially?

Nope.

 

The ACA is also owned by more than just Obama. It'd be more accurate to call it Obamacare if it didn't have to go through compromises (as it should) to satisfy Congress. I guess the technical issues are not related to that though.

Don't worry. When (and if) this all gets straightened out there will be plenty of people lining up to take credit.

 

What I find interesting is how much energy is being devoted to criticizing the healthcare.gov website. What happens when these issues are fixed? Does the narrative shift to "sure, they fixed the website . . . but this thing is still a total failure"? I seriously wonder how many times the Republicans are going to wreck their ship on this particular rock.

[TGHusker]

Carl's question: What do I mean by lack of leadership? My answer: Whoever was responsible to make sure the roll out of this signature legislation was successful. If you are Harry S Truman - that would be himself. If you are Pres Obama - most likely his HHS secretary or an underling.

I wasn't asking which leader you were referring. I was asking what specific action you're referring to with the "leadership" meme.

 

If only Obama would lead! He needs to quit calling for meetings, giving speeches, campaigning, etc. and LEAD. It's probably the most empty minded criticism that I can think of. Definitely right up there with "stop dividing."

Thanks for clarification - the leadership I am talking about is specifically about implementation - oversight of getting the website working by the kick off date. The question perhaps could have been stated - was there a lack of oversight, or was there something systematic in govt that could have caused this. As noted on your thread, could the continued anti-ACA actions of the House cause the problem (doubtful since they paid out $400m approx to get the website up). So the specific action would be: Making sure the website was ready for kickoff of ACA. My question then goes to the leader : Who is responsible ? Is it a specific person like the HHS Sec, Her boss, or a system of leadership in govt as a whole - systematic - that it is hard for one person to make a difference whether it be the HHS sec or Pres due to the cumbersomeness of govt.

[TGHusker]

I'm not sure where the blame goes but can anyone really think of anything that was rolled out for the first time and it just worked, no hitches, no problems, nada? At this scale especially?

 

The ACA is also owned by more than just Obama. It'd be more accurate to call it Obamacare if it didn't have to go through compromises (as it should) to satisfy Congress. I guess the technical issues are not related to that though.

I would agree - I have been a part of many IT roll outs wtin business - they all had a glitch or two. This one is magnified by its importance to the country.

[carlfense]

The question perhaps could have been stated - was there a lack of oversight, or was there something systematic in govt that could have caused this.

Systemic in government? Huh?

 

As noted on your thread, could the continued anti-ACA actions of the House cause the problem (doubtful since they paid out $400m approx to get the website up).

Regarding the bold, if you're saying that the House "paid out $400m approximately," no they did not.

How about House Republicans who refused to appropriate the money the Department of Health and Human Services said it needed to properly implement Obamacare?

How about Senate Republicans who tried to intimidate Sebelius out of using existing HHS funds to implement Obamacare? "Would you describe the authority under which you believe you have the ability to conduct such transfers?" Sen. Orrin Hatch demanded at one hearing. It's difficult to imagine the size of the disaster if Sebelius hadn't moved those funds.

How about congressional Republicans who refuse to permit the packages of technical fixes and tweaks that laws of this size routinely require?

 

How about Republican governors who told the Obama administration they absolutely had to be left to build their own health-care exchanges -- you'll remember that the House Democrats' health-care plan included a single, national exchange -- and then refused to build, leaving the construction of 34 insurance marketplaces up to HHS?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/24/wonkbook-the-gops-obamacare-chutzpah/

 

So the specific action would be: Making sure the website was ready for kickoff of ACA. My question then goes to the leader : Who is responsible ? Is it a specific person like the HHS Sec, Her boss, or a system of leadership in govt as a whole - systematic - that it is hard for one person to make a difference whether it be the HHS sec or Pres due to the cumbersomeness of govt.

It's a large and extremely complex system. There will be bugs. It'd be a wonderful start if we could all agree that we should work to make this succeed.

 

The worst part is that I just know that Republicans wouldn't be complaining about the ACA if the website worked perfectly.

[Junior]

The question perhaps could have been stated - was there a lack of oversight, or was there something systematic in govt that could have caused this.

Systemic in government? Huh?

 

As noted on your thread, could the continued anti-ACA actions of the House cause the problem (doubtful since they paid out $400m approx to get the website up).

Regarding the bold, if you're saying that the House "paid out $400m approximately," no they did not.

How about House Republicans who refused to appropriate the money the Department of Health and Human Services said it needed to properly implement Obamacare?

 

How about Senate Republicans who tried to intimidate Sebelius out of using existing HHS funds to implement Obamacare? "Would you describe the authority under which you believe you have the ability to conduct such transfers?" Sen. Orrin Hatch demanded at one hearing. It's difficult to imagine the size of the disaster if Sebelius hadn't moved those funds.

 

How about congressional Republicans who refuse to permit the packages of technical fixes and tweaks that laws of this size routinely require?

 

How about Republican governors who told the Obama administration they absolutely had to be left to build their own health-care exchanges -- you'll remember that the House Democrats' health-care plan included a single, national exchange -- and then refused to build, leaving the construction of 34 insurance marketplaces up to HHS?

http://www.washingto...acare-chutzpah/

 

So the specific action would be: Making sure the website was ready for kickoff of ACA. My question then goes to the leader : Who is responsible ? Is it a specific person like the HHS Sec, Her boss, or a system of leadership in govt as a whole - systematic - that it is hard for one person to make a difference whether it be the HHS sec or Pres due to the cumbersomeness of govt.

It's a large and extremely complex system. There will be bugs. It'd be a wonderful start if we could all agree that we should work to make this succeed.

 

The worst part is that I just know that Republicans wouldn't be complaining about the ACA if the website worked perfectly.