Tevi Troy rewrites Obama-UPDATED

Over at National Review, Tevi Troy, the deputy health secretary in the second President Bush’s second term, imagines how President Obama might have delivered a more Republican-friendly health care speech:

I propose that tonight we begin from scratch. We should proceed with a process that will be bipartisan, and bicameral, and that will not be beholden to the status quo or interest-group politics. We should bring Republicans to the table and hammer out an agreement that Americans from both parties can support.

There’s a subtly mocking underlay to Tevi’s piece: He keeps in italics the parts of Obama’s address that he likes — the soaring rhetoric — but reserves regular type for the substance, suggesting that’s where Obama’s case collapses.

Yet this passage in Tevi’s "speech" is not in italics:

To address this problem, we should embrace real tort reform. I propose immediately adopting a Bush administration idea to authorize demonstration projects in individual states to test alternatives to lawsuits to resolve disputes.

But Obama did say this in his speech, regarding tort reform:

I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

Hmmm.

UPDATE: I misread Tevi; more correctly, I overread into his piece. He writes to say that he sought to offer his take on "the President’s themes of cost cutting, access, malpractice reform, and Ted Kennedy," including parts he liked; but he changed enough that he could not keep Obama’s original intact.

Blogging, I think, tends to nurture my tendency to overthink.

I was alerted to Tevi’s take through the Republican Jewish Coalition’s weekly update. RJC folks have told me that they are not necessarily endorsing the links, it’s just "stuff you should see."

Still:

RJC introduces a link to Power Line’s commentary on the speech, noting that blogger John Hinderaker questions its "political effectiveness." RJC grabs this passage:

(Quoting Obama): "Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."

I’m not sure whether Obama and his handlers understand how this sort of talk grates on those of us who are not liberal Democrats (a large majority of the country). Debating public policy issues is not "bickering." Disagreeing with a proposal to radically change one of the largest sectors of our economy is not a "game." This kind of gratuitous insult–something we never heard from President Bush, for example–is one of the reasons why many consider Obama to be mean-spirited.

Fair enough.

But then, deeper in the email, RJC links to this piece by Ron Lipsman, entitled "Are American Jews the most Foolish Voters in the United States?" and its pretty much argued in the affirmative (because they vote for Democrats).

I dunno, but if I wanted to expand my base, I would wonder about calling my targets "the most foolish in the United States." Doesn’t sound so "politically effective."