Gibbs Waffles On Public Option
It's easy to read too deeply into exchanges between the President's press secretary and the White House press corps. But in light of last night's confirmation that the Senate Finance Committee will eschew a public option in favor of privately held, non-profit co-ops, this clip seems worthwhile.
We'll see if Gibbs has a straighter answer today. Several days ago, Obama appeared to say, in no uncertain terms, that any health care bill he signs would need to include a public option. Now Gibbs is saying Obama's team is at least considering a co-op model.
As more details emerge, it's worth keeping in mind that as far as the Finance Committee's negotiations are concerned, a "co-op" is a very fuzzy concept. As with a public option, a co-operative can be strong or weak or in between. Earlier in negotiations, the public option's point man, Chuck Schumer, suggested he could endorse a robust co-op model, but that committee Republicans were only willing to accept something much weaker.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Is it my imagination or do we keep having some version of this very same post "(Insert Admin Official Here) Waffles on Public Option" just about every day here?
July 28, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh for crying out loud, can we stop Chicken Littling every little statement out of the Obama administration with regard to the public option? If it doesn't make it into the final bill and Obama still signs it, I'll be blasting him and Congress with the rest of us. But until then, all this micro-analyzing is worse than useless.
Obama's strategy, for better or for worse, is to let Congress do its thing and then insert himself into the debate at the last possible moment in order to make the biggest impact. He is simply not going to make a firm statement in favor of a public option. The best we can get out of him is that he is open to any ideas which can reduce costs but the public option is the only way he sees to do it. If you read behind the lines of that statement, that's really as good as a firm commitment (I leave it up to you to decide what a firm commitment from Obama is worth).
July 28, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't TPM go after other lines of dialogue on this critical issue? I find your posts are mirroring the MSM and NOT providing any insight or the inside story on any developments.
Is it too much to ask for you to go after direct quotes and contacts with some insiders?
What the hell!
July 28, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting for Obama to, at some point, say this is too big of an issue to not get it done right and he's decided to join with everyday American's to fight against insurance companies to ensure we get affordable health care for everyone.
We need another "ENOUGH!" moment from him.
July 28, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, the Blue-Ball Dogs are OK with a co-op? Then just jigger the optics of a public option and call it a co-op.
Of course, that's not what's going on here. They're not playing to the crowd; they're playing to PACs and lobbyists, and they're not fooled by optics nearly so much.
July 28, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
What they've made clear is that they are not averse to giving the So-Called Moderate Republicans or the Barelydems a rhetorical victory as long as they get what they want substantively, and they don't want Gibbs drawing rhetorical lines in the sand that make it impossible to give them those rhetorical victories. If "co-op" means an entity big enough and toothy enough to do everything they want the public option to do that is organized like a co-op, they'll take it. If "co-op" means "Republican plan to gut the public option," they won't. When line in the sand-drawing time, happens, you'll get one of those "impromptu" appearances by Obama at the daily briefing.
July 28, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. They can call it whatever they want, but it better be a public option that is government run without the criminal insurance industry involved. If no public option/whatever you want to call it, why bother doing any of this, because it will be a complete waste of time and will only benefit the criminal insurance industry.
July 28, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
BarelyDem. I like it.
If it's called a co-op, but is masquerading as a true public option (and I don't know how that could happen--but I'm not an expert) then go for it.
Since it seems extremely likely that there won't be a vote on this by either chamber until September, it makes no sense whatsoever for the Obama Administration to be staking out a position that could be attacked, daily, from August 8 out. So I'm not terribly surprised that Gibbs appears, to some, to be "waffling".
July 28, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama may be holding this close to the vest. This could be a ploy to give the GOP the impression they are winning. If, on the other hand, he really does go alog with this piece of garbage, he will not have my vote in 2012
July 28, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it gives a few moderate Republicans an out to vote for it, then call it whatever. I think we have to recognize that it would have been a lot easier to convince the public of the necessity of a public plan if the government hadn't had to invest in the banking and auto industry this year. The problems Obama inherited from Bush made a public plan much harder to sell.
July 28, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink