TPMDC
Grassley Says Health Care Deal With The White House Is--and Isn't--Possible
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Share
Send to a friend!
Are the Senate Finance Committee's bipartisan health care negotiations getting anywhere? According to the panel's lead Republican, Chuck Grassley, the answer is no. And yes!
"I don't think it's going to be possible to work it out with the administration because they're all over the field -- all over the ball park, I guess, as we say," Grassley told reporters in Iowa, presumably while trying to come up with the word "map."
He added that the Obama administration has been unclear about whether it wants health care legislation to include a public option, which, Grassley said, "leads to single-payer, completely government-run health care system and no choice."
So I guess that's it for bipartisanship, then, right? Well....
"I do believe it's possible to reach an agreement," Grassley added.
But I have to confess to you to be a little more cautious when I say that now, because I've been out here listening to my constituents. And if -- and if other members of Congress are hearing what I'm hearing, they're saying, "Slow it down. Do it a little more carefully. Make sure you know what you're doing. And maybe do it even a little more incrementally."
What we may be witnessing, more than any problem with the White House, is Grassley's tendency to say one thing to people in Washington and another to people back home. Grassley recently told a group of constituents in Iowa that they were right to worry that Democratic health care reform would mean 'pulling the plug on grandma,' then spent two weeks walking the claim back after his colleagues and certain members of the media objected.
Comments (12) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
tiowally
August 25, 2009 4:25 PM
Just another poster boy for congressional term limits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
August 25, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to tiowally
Or at least, mandatory retirement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blmack
August 25, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to tiowally
Or death panels...?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
August 25, 2009 4:29 PM
You know, it may be possible to win this issue without turning into the opposition--
Was "presumably while trying to come up with the word 'map'" necessary?
Do you think there might be a difference between agreeing with the adminstration and negotiating an agreement in Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
August 25, 2009 4:29 PM
He has no interest in reaching any kind of deal. Anyone who talks to him or takes him seriously is a moron. Freeze him out now!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 25, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to Moose49
You're quite wrong. He wants a deal. He wants Senate Democrats to agree to nix the public option and then pass it without any Republican votes.
Oh, wait, by "deal," you must have meant that, in return for us doing something he wants, he, in return, would do something we want. Some quid pro quo, some "consideration," to use the language of contract.
Sorry, I thought after last eight years, it was clear that, in Republicanworld, where all of us, of course, still live, "deal" means Democrats do exactly what Repbublicans want them to without being so gauche, so un-American, as to demand anything from Republicans in return. Clearly, the MSM understands that. I don't know why you DFH bloggers insist on being so obtuse .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
August 25, 2009 4:34 PM
We need to shower Grassley with electric plugs and mention we are ready to see the plug pulled out on him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
August 25, 2009 6:31 PM in reply to Progressive Party
I like it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
August 25, 2009 4:55 PM
Dear Chuck:
You seem to be under the impression that you are somehow relevant to this whole process. You might have been, but you gave that up by acting like a dick. Now all you can do is STFU and let those who still matter get the real work done.
Sincerely,
MBF
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
August 25, 2009 5:47 PM
Every microsecond spent paying attention to Grassley is a wasted microsecond of your life that you'll never get back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
August 25, 2009 7:23 PM
You heard it here first.....weeks ago
Jonathan Chait picks up my favorite rant:
http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=0cec8e5a-e6d4-428c-8a34-cc5569ce217d
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
August 25, 2009 7:29 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
Well, the news coverage has been pretty poor at explaining the institutional dynamics. Yet some blame also has to rest with the poor design of our political systems. Americans have come to think of presidential elections as the be-all, end-all of political change in America. Not only is the Senate a malapportioned, counter-majoritarian institution with arcane procedures, it's practically designed to prevent accountability. Obama supporters who want the agenda they voted for to be enacted into law need to be exerting pressure on figures like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad. Yet these characters are accountable only to tiny, unrepresentative slices of the population. So they get angry at Obama instead, which only makes him less popular and which makes the Baucuses and Conrads even less likely to support him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?