TPMDC

Gibbs: Enzi's Flipped Over His Cards And Walked Away from the Health Care Table

Brian Beutler | August 31, 2009, 2:16PM

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY)

Read More

Chuck Grassley, Health Care, Mike Enzi, Robert Gibbs, Senate Finance Committee, White House

Share

Fark

Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today that the "Gang of Six" health care negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee might now be the "Gang of Five."

During this week's GOP YouTube address, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY)--one of the three Republicans involved in bipartisan health care negotiations--trashed Democratic reform ideas.

"The bills would expand comparative effectiveness research that would be used to limit or deny care based on age or disability of patients," Enzi said, echoing the rationale used by those who falsely warn that Democrats plan to create "death panels."

For the White House, that appears to have been a bridge too far.

"In Senator Enzi's case, he doesn't believe there's a pathway to get bipartisan support and the President thinks that's wrong," Gibbs said. "I think Senator Enzi's clearly turned over his cards on bipartisanship and decided that it's time to walk away from the table."

On a related note, Ezra Klein revealed today that Sen. Chuck Grassley--the lead Republican in those negotiations--has been raising money by attacking "Obama-care": "the legislation sponsored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi...and Chairman Ted Kennedy."

Maybe the Gang of Six is actually down to four? Let's see what the White House has to say.

Other Stories Featured at TPMDC

Get It Done: Reid Threatens Weekend Session If GOP Filibusters Just-Completed Jobs Bill

No Regrets: Cosponsor Of GOP Budget Gives His Leaders A Pass--Despite Their Unwillingness To Support It

Democrats: We're Excited To Debate GOP Shadow Budget...Why Aren't Republicans?

Is Ryan's Social Security Slashing Budget Like Contract With America?

Join the Conversation!

45 comments

Recommend Recommend (3)

August 31, 2009 2:30 PM

At this point, I think there's enough evidence (this, Gr-ASS-ly pledging to defeat Obamacare, etc) that the Obama Admin knows whats up and has their plan in place... I'm hopeful for September, not quite optimistic just yet, but certainly hopeful.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

August 31, 2009 2:35 PM in reply to Shrubbit

So Congress goes back into session... ... wednesday? Next monday?

When's Obama come off of his vacation?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 3:05 PM in reply to mcc

Return next Monday.

Obama is back until Wednesday of this week--then off to Camp David.

Which seems ok--who's going to pay attention to politics over Labor Day weekend? Here in the northeast, the weather is predicted to be fabulous, and kids either will be starting school next week or enjoying their long weekend from this week's classes.

Next week, the crazy can start up anew.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:34 PM in reply to CT Voter

I don't think the crazy will start anew. I'm hopeful that SANITY maybe will start anew.

The R's are acting like there are TWO AMERICAS. The first being their nutbag neocon constituents (Town Halls) and the second is everybody else (MSM). Say one thing to one and another to the other. As we saw in the Prez campaign, this line of attack works for about 3-4 weeks, but is unsustainable.

I think they've shot their load, so to speak, and it's our turn now. Their duplicity might have even laid the groundwork for a strong counter-attack. John Edwards' "One America" rhetoric comes to mind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 1, 2009 7:31 AM in reply to Shrubbit

I think this is exactly right. Remember when Sarah Palin started all the crazy talk about socialism and pallin' around with terrorts, etc. It seemed to have a big impact on things, igniting a fire on the right and consuming all the oxygen in the MSM. But after a few weeks, it fizzled. I distinctly recall all the hand wringing from the left about how Obama had lost control of the debate. Does this sound familiar?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mike from Arlington

August 31, 2009 3:13 PM

Of course he is. Damage done. He's got his assured re-election campaign funding promise. He's delayed all he has to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

August 31, 2009 3:17 PM

Look for Enzi to walk back his effective admission that he's only in it as a spoiler, that no compromise he or any Republican will vote for is possible and that he's fully willing to endorse the crazy if it will advance his, or his party's, narrow partisan ends within the next 48 hours. And look for the MSM to dutifully accept his plusgood fullwise revision and resume their preparations to blame each side equally for the failure to achieve Holy Bipartisanship (like Ted would have wanted) when preparations for a Dem only plan are implemented.

At least, that's exactly what they've done in Grassley's case.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 3:28 PM

And these are the people Obama thought would work in a bii-partisan fashion? OBama was rolled.

The idea of Obama and the Dems passing a health care bill is a political nightmare to the Republicans and that's why they will never get on board regardless of how far right Obama and the Dems go with it; and if Obama didn't know that he deserved to get rolled.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

August 31, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to JohnW1141

No. These are the people they had to go through the motions of trying to negotiate with to (possibly) avoid being castigated for for failing to adhere to Holy Principle of Bipartisanship when the Dem-only bill is rolled out.

I don't really get why people have such a hard time getting that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

August 31, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

We heard all the same hue and cry when they passed the stimulus bill. "Oh, no!! He's giving away the store!!!"

In reality, they gave away nothing of consequence and passed pretty much what they wanted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:26 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

That's crap. The stimulus package was a terrible piece of legislation -- undersized, full of wasted spending and meaningless tax cuts. It doesn't matter if Obama got beat or actually wanted such a timid, inadequate bill. Either way he failed.

He gained nothing by once encouraging Republican wackos to poison the quality and progress of health care reform. Normal people don't care about bipartisanship. They want action. What counts is whether the bill that passes actually works. Obama and the rest of the Dems could have fought for single payer or socialized medicine, and forced through the best bill possible without involving the Republicans. This would have maximized the chance of getting a good bill that would have the greatest positive impact.

Instead, Obama made nice with the Republicans for months, during which time the pro-injustice crowd dug in and convinced millions of Americans that various fantasy stories about Obama's plan were true. Now we are more or less guaranteed a weak bill that will make Obama and the Democrats look like incompetents.

I guess this will be the Obama Method: Start scared, compromise with maniacs, and claim that's the best he could have done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:36 PM in reply to Skybolt

Let's see what the final bill looks like Skybolt. I can tell you right now if you think the bill Waxman, Andrews, Miller et al present in June (HR 3200) which is the best of the lot is going to kill private insurance and lead to single payer like Republicans claim you're mistaken.

What it will do is force insurance companies to compete against each other and the public option (to a limited extent), and outlaw their worst practices. It does away with the virtual monopoly racket they have now and will lower prices.

And that's just the insurance side of the bill. It won't be like Canada, it'll be more like Holland and Switzerland, Germany a bit but they are more heavily unionized and rely on their guilds more than we will.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to Skybolt

This would have maximized the chance of getting a good bill that would have the greatest positive impact.

It would have provided Republicans with a months-long opportunity to scream about bipartisanship without ever having to back it up, and the media echoing their bleats without critical analysis.

With Enzi and Grassley backing away at the last minute, it becomes obvious that Republicans weren't negotiating in good faith to begin with. Inhofe's comments will also help, as will Boehner's. Rope was given to the Republicans, and they've wrapped it around their own party's neck.

Would we have gotten this far had Democrats and the White House said, essentially, FU to the Republicans? I doubt it.

Is the bill that will result from this sausage making process going to solve everything? Probably not. But it might provide political capital to continue to reform healthcare, rather than having reform completely derailed.

I don't know how this is going to turn out. No one does. But taking an absolutist position so early in the process probably wouldn't have produced all that much.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 11:54 PM in reply to CT Voter

It would have provided Republicans with a months-long opportunity to scream about bipartisanship without ever having to back it up, and the media echoing their bleats without critical analysis.

And you think that's going to change now?

Not even NCSteve believes that. I direct you to his words directly upthread:

And look for the MSM to dutifully accept his plusgood fullwise revision and resume their preparations to blame each side equally for the failure to achieve Holy Bipartisanship (like Ted would have wanted) when preparations for a Dem only plan are implemented.
At least, that's exactly what they've done in Grassley's case.

With Enzi and Grassley backing away at the last minute, it becomes obvious that Republicans weren't negotiating in good faith to begin with.

That's been obvious for months now, to anyone who has been paying any kind of attention. It's been screamingly, spectacularly obvious. It doesn't appear to matter to the corporate media.

As far as the media are concerned, the PR value of all this "bipartisanship" has been nil. It has, however, succeeded in taking a number of good policies "off the table" for the sake of "compromise."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

It's been obvious for months. I also don't understand why people don't see it. They have to show the moderates that they are willing to listen to the other side. They have to show the moderates that the other side is not willing to listen to them in return. Does anyone not think they've done this? So now, when they pass the bill they have always planned to pass, and it has zero Republican votes, they can demonstrate how that is due to the other side's strategy of obstruction, not their bill. I swear, it was only two months ago that people were wondering if Sonia Sotomayor's nomination was in trouble.

Are people really this incapable of seeing what's in front of their faces?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CharlesBrown

August 31, 2009 5:05 PM in reply to unabogie

It sounds to me like you are saying that Obama's bipartisan speeches were purely a PR maneuver. That Obama knew in advance that Repubs were not going to compromise, and that he felt the public needed to know as well. What BS. What was the contingency then if Repubs decided to accept the proposed co-op option? Oh I get it. Co-op WAS the contingency. That Obama and Baucus wanted co-op all along, and they wanted the Repubs to "force" them into "accepting" co-op. What slimes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to CharlesBrown

That Obama knew in advance that Repubs were not going to compromise, and that he felt the public needed to know as well.

Given the behavior of Republicans on the stimulus bill (the screaming and crying about deficits coupled with the taking of credit for the money once back home), is that assumption (Republicans weren't going to compromise) so outlandish?

If he came right out and said that from the start, he'd have been buried in an avalanche of bad press. So putting up a good front while preparing for the worst doesn't seem like such a bad plan in today's political climate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to JohnW1141

I don't think that the Obama crew chose these people to negotiate with. They were the only game in town. But once you were going to try to negotiate, you had to treat them publicly as though they were negotiating in good faith.

It was a game of Public Relations on both sides. It was entirely for show because to get the bill passed and implemented the public had to be convinced that everyone who was going to participate had given input that was considered. The Republicans have chosen the most extreme level of obstructionism, and they've demonstrated it. They've even raised money on it. Everyone now knows where they stand.

Since the MSM is now almost completely partisan and right-wing, they will not give more than quick passing mention of the Republican obstructionism, if that.

It looks like this stage of the game is nearing its end.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 1, 2009 7:34 AM in reply to JohnW1141

I don't think that Obama is under any illusions of bipartisanship. That ship sailed back in February during the bruising stimulus battle.

It seems to me that Obama, for political reasons, is making "bipartisan" noises because it focus tests well, but when the rubber hits the road, he will shred the facade and plow through legislation in a partisan fashion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 3:29 PM

The White House is the last to know, apparently.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 3:53 PM

WOW, did you read the letter from Grassley (.pdf is linked in the linked Klein column). I thought, according to Hatch and others, that if Teddy were still alive, he would have supported some kind of health care reform that is palatable to republicans. I guess that changed some time between 8/10 and Teddy's death. Ohhhhhhh ... this wouldn't be republicans politicizing Teddy's death, would it?

And the right-in-your-face, "Help me defeat Obamacare" line. Sheesh.

Man, Grassley's letter is disgusting on a few different levels.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 3:55 PM

There is no "Gang." It was all a bait and switch scheme.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:08 PM

"Let's see what the White House has to say."

Nothing. Not a thing. The Administration will just continue to roll over and take it up the ol' poop chute. It's easier to break promises and blame somebody else than it is to actually work to keep those promises.

Chumps and liars is what we elected. Nice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

August 31, 2009 4:13 PM

Dems got played. This month recess allowed the lobbyists and insurance companies to sink their claws into the Blue Dogs in the House and the Corporate Democrats in the Senate.

Dems can't pass a partisan bill because certain members of the Dem Senate Caucus are completely bought and paid for. For crying out loud Bayh is married to the health care industry.

In the house the Blue Dogs are rallying around the fact that the progressives are in safe seats while they're constantly at risk and thus the House health reform bill should cater to their needs in order to help them get re-elected. You see it seems that it's all about getting/staying elected to the blue dogs - it's all about them. Their political life is more important than the lives of Americans that comprehensive health reform would help.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

August 31, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

It's the R's who got played. It's an exact replay of the stimulus bill. HCR will pass. When it does, people will be generally happy with it. Who's going to look like chumps for trying to stop it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:16 PM

I now await Enzi's outraged demand for an apology from Gibbs.

After all, Republicans are free to insult, swiftboat and fearmonger against liberals and Democrats without fear even of criticism. If, on the other hand, a Democrat or liberal criticizes a Republican or conservative in even the most measured of tones, there will barely be time to check one's watch before the calculated, coordinated hue and cry begins to arise from the ranks of the RNC.

This is what the media calls "bipartisanship".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:18 PM

Tea-Bagger Daily Schedule:

9 a.m. – Wake up

9:15 a.m. – Watch Fox News segment on why Obama is a Socialist and nod in agreement

9:30 a.m. – Cash government unemployment check

10 a.m. – Listen to Limbaugh on radio and giggle, “you tell ‘em Rush!”

10:30 a.m. – Go to doctor paid for by Medicare
11 a.m. – Read email claiming Obama was born in Kenya, forward it to friends and demand to personally see his birth certificate

11:15 a.m. – Print email of talking points against public option written by insurance company which they think comes from “average Americans” like them

11:30 – Paint offensive sign criticizing Obama and Nancy Pelosi

Noon – buy more bullets for hand gun at Wal-Mart, pick up prescription medication for free paid by Medicare

1 p.m. – Picket outside Town Hall meeting, accuse all opponents of being Communists

2 p.m. – Yell inside Town Hall meeting “I want my country back!’

3 p.m. – Try to get interviewed by local Fox affiliate who organized this “grass roots” protest

3:30 p.m. – Listen to Sean Hannity on the radio and smirk, “You tell ‘em Sean!”

4 p.m. – Go online and sign up for extension of unemployment benefits, claim to be looking for jobs

5 p.m. – Watch O’Reilly on Fox News and mutter, “This country is going to hell.”

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jerryfatheart

August 31, 2009 4:37 PM in reply to traitorjoe

This post is a miracle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to jerryfatheart

Thanks Jerry

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:47 PM in reply to jerryfatheart

Except he left out Glennie Boy.

Otherwise, I give it an 11 out of 10 point scale.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jerryfatheart

August 31, 2009 5:01 PM in reply to CT Voter

We should call that the "Rove Scale."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to jerryfatheart

He's got The Math, and all. . .

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

August 31, 2009 4:58 PM in reply to traitorjoe

6 pm - Sign petition demanding the government stay out of Social Security and Medicare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 5:48 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

Mans Best:
Hilarious!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wyt

August 31, 2009 4:40 PM

Consider the three Dems in the Gang of Six: These wise leaders vouched that their chosen Republican associates where honorable people to negotiate with. Don't the fine people who gave us that assurance deserve demotion in their Senate and public status?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 4:49 PM in reply to wyt

Well, they first have to have the egg scraped off their faces.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Armageddon T. Thunderbird

August 31, 2009 4:55 PM

Read "Conscience of a Liberal" by Paul Krugman. He specifically said in that book that there would be no way a single Republican would ever vote for healthcare because it would demonstrate that there is a role for government in American lives. No matter what....not for any reason....no way,,,no how would any Republican EVER vote for a government role in anything....except torture of course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

August 31, 2009 4:56 PM

This doesn't mean the Gang of Six is coming to a close, it just means the Dems have to work harder to get their vote is all. Expect Obama, Rahm, Reid, Baucus and the rest to re-dedicate themselves to the bi-partisan goal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

earnest_truthseeker

August 31, 2009 5:19 PM

The republican position on this is nothing short of...staggering. This documentary will curl your hair:

http://newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0225

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 5:59 PM

I think this is great news. now mayb e we can get something meaningfull.

Pass the bill kennedy proposed with the public option

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

vamonticello

August 31, 2009 6:16 PM

THATS GOOD!!! 1 down 1 more to go.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 31, 2009 11:01 PM

So now what? Compromise to get Olympia Snow's vote? Really? Kicked them all out of the room already.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 1, 2009 8:19 AM

So Iowa and Wyoming get to keep the current health care system and the other 48 states will get a a public option. Set up a study and see which states do better. Will all the grannies move there to save themselves?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 1, 2009 3:53 PM

"Sen. Chuck Grassley--the lead Republican in those negotiations--has been raising money by attacking "Obama-care"

NOW we got a problem...

If these flailing Republicans find out that the fat cats and their lemmings behind the healthcare resistance fiasco will pony up lots cash to soothe their loser souls, they will abandon anything akin to public interest.

I don't know what the formula is, but I would guess one millionaire constituent with health industry interests is worth more to the Grassleys and the Renzis (those legal fees are a bitch) than a thousand common, everyday voters.

Watch the 'dogs, too. As their next political seasons start rolling around, there's little doubt their list of contributors will reveal their real motives.

Don't get me wrong, I would gladly add my efforts to oust Grassley if I was still in Iowa, but the real chore, except in those places where a Democrat might be able to whoop up on a miscreant Republican, the battle we now face is to purge the Democratic Party of the reddogs.

And it doesn't take an unelectable left wing extremist to accomplish that. An electable centrist Democrat with a sincere respect for the democratic process, willing to represent their constituency rather than corporations, would put a stop to this public trust betrayal that conservative Dems are foisting upon the future.

Anywhere there is a vulnerable Republican, it is worth leaning into beating them. But our best chance for a new Democratic majority of honest, nonhypocrites comes in purging the red meat from the blue plate special.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 2, 2009 11:10 AM

Faced with unsustainable insurance premiums, the auto industry has little chance to roll out affordable products as the premium inflation plunged it into insolvency before.

With this promising reform that comes in with a balancing function for price in operation, Chevy Volt, too, could earn competitive edge in price along the way, together with Nissan Leaf.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Follow us!

Most Popular

Viewed
Rec'd
Commented

TPM Top News

Tried And True?
Is The GOP's Social-Security-Slashing 'Shadow Budget' A New Contract With America?

DADT Repeal Advocate Lt. Dan Choi Rejoins Unit

Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama

Hoyer Thinks GOP Should Debate 'Shadow Budget'