TPMDC
Axelrod to Grassley, Enzi: Nice Knowin' Ya!
White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod
Share
Send to a friend!
White House adviser David Axelrod says Sen. Chuck Grassley's attempt to raise funds by attacking "Obama-care" was a bridge too far.
"If you're sitting at a table negotiating in good faith, then you probably don't send out mailers saying, 'Help me stop Obama-care.' That's just common sense," Axelrod told the Wall Street Journal, adding that Grassley's actions, along with those of Sen. Mike Enzi, suggest "they don't want to participate" in constructive health care negotiations.
"They're satisfied with the status quo. We are not," Axelrod said.
Earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that, by lending credence to the "death panel" attack, Enzi had turned over his cards and walked away from the table.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee will likely have the ultimate say in who's allowed to negotiate for health care reform, and who won't. But as far as the White House is concerned, the gang of six is down to four, and they're now looking to more moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe for support.
Comments (47) | 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.
VLaszlo
September 2, 2009 12:14 PM
Axelrod to progressives: Nice Knowin' Ya.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/obama-to-clarify-health-care--still-no-demand-for-public-option.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
September 2, 2009 12:31 PM in reply to VLaszlo
Hmm........you're so prescient knowing what Obama's going to say in his speech and all. Are you on the AHIP payroll or just a garden variety asshole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VLaszlo
September 2, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to plan69
It's a difficult question you pose. I am not prescient; but after 8 months I am beginning to learn how to read the Obama "team". This puts me slightly ahead of the sticks of wood who have to wait for the hammer to fall on their head before they can tell they are being used. But I also think I have been an asshole, probably even garden variety, getting played by Obama and the Democrats one more time after a lifetime of watching them break promise after promise. I used not to vote at all because I thought the Democrats were as shitty as the Republicans; then I thought nobody could be as shitty as Republicans; now I am back to watching from the sidelines. The best part will be the stories of how great Obama would have been if the Republicans had just played by the rules.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 2, 2009 5:09 PM in reply to VLaszlo
So basically, you assume bad faith and incompetence. Problem with assumptions like that is that they're irrebutable because it means everything you see becomes further evidence that your assumption is correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VLaszlo
September 2, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Sure. So in the end we will have to wait and see what emerges. Obama and Rahm and the gang haven't exactly joined the fray so it is hard for anyone to know exactly what they believe and where they are on issues. This has the obvious advantage that they are hard to pin down and can always be defended right up to and maybe even after the event. I am sure you are well aware that such tactics have a serious downside in that the other side controls the debate and the discourse and the side favoring change lacks direction, leadership and intensity. It has always been my take that real change cannot be finessed, but has to be fought and won directly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
September 2, 2009 8:15 PM in reply to VLaszlo
Troll!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 2, 2009 11:46 PM in reply to lousgirl84
No, realist.
Current evidence about Obama's behavior indicates at least incompetence unless part of his chess game is driving his own approval ratings down. Substantial evidence exists for bad faith as well -- start with the hidden agreement to limit the cost to the Big Pharma and continue with the continued trial balloons seeking to see whether the support for public option as cooled enough that he can shaft his base. Not calling him out for failing to see that single payer got a full consideration because he already folded on that on the campaign trail. Wonder whether Obama now thinks that single payer would have been a harder sell than DEATH PANELS. Looking at history he should have known that the Rethuglicans would continue to make things up so he might as well have proposed something useful and fought for it.
That said, I voted against Obama in this election but I anticipate working hard for him in the next because the selections from the rump ReThuglican Party are all crazed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VLaszlo
September 3, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to AJM
"Wonder whether Obama now thinks that single payer would have been a harder sell than DEATH PANELS. "
Good point. If I understand Democratic strategy it runs something like this. Water down in advance any policy (health care, education reform, executive pay limitation, bailout policy, Afghanistan, torture, prosecution or even investigation of Bush-Cheney lawbreaking) in anticipation of Republican and blue dog opposition, then when faced with a fury of right wing distortion and hate eviscerate the policy further. Now here is the key part: run against the Republicans and right wing for the policy their incalcitrance and obstruction has FORCED the well-meaning Democratic leadership into; i.e., the Republican policies of the Democratic leadership. If only the Republicans would play by the rules. Support the Emergency appeal for volunteers and contributions to defeat Republicans and enact the wonderful Democratic agenda that we never try to enact because the opposition is terrible, uncivil, unfair, and much too strong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 2, 2009 12:23 PM
Good. Senator CrankyTwitter? Actions have consequences.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
September 2, 2009 12:32 PM
Where were these guys when Grassley, et al were claiming Obama wants to kill Grandma, etc.? It's been obivous from January 22 that any attempt to get legislation passed with significant Republican support was doomed to failure. Republican don't care about governing, only about seizing and maintaining power.
I wouldn't advise showing them the back of my hand needlessly, but I would also be attacking them for the lies and obstructionism for obstructionism's sake that they are clearly guilty of (e.g., why are insurance companies' profits more important to Senator Grassley than the health of American citizens?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 2, 2009 5:15 PM in reply to brewmn61
Obvious to you. Maybe even obvious to me and the rest of the 17% who consider themselves "liberal" or "progressive."
Problem is, it's not obvious to everyone else. Everyone else has to be shown. Not told, shown. And in this democracy, at this time, and at this place, that means going through the motions--and even doing it in good faith in the hope that you're wrong--was a critical part of the dance. The Village MSM demands that the ritual be performed because, even though they've also known since January 22 that the GOP wasn't going to do anything but obstruct, they aren't allowed to say that until Republicans actually do it.
If they had just charged ahead on the assumption that the Republicans were going to obstruct, the Village MSM would have crucified them and the non-political junkies who get all their news from the MSM would be convinced that we are the unreasonable partisans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
September 2, 2009 6:29 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Do you see any evidence that the MSM will actually report that bi-partisanship was attempted by Obama, and unreasonably rejected by Republicans? Because I don't see it yet.
I've gotten to the point where I see the MSM nothing but Dana Milbanks, smugly laughing at Democrats' oh-so earnest attempts to provide a real benefit to average Americans. Don't we know that the only people worth paying attention to are the corporate lobbyists that throw all the great parties and the Republicans, who are willing to stop at nothing (certainly nothing as trite as the truth, or a modicum of respect for other people) in order to provide the outrageous political theater that Washington reporters desperately need to spice up their otherwise deadly dull day jobs?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
September 2, 2009 8:16 PM in reply to brewmn61
Me too Steve. That's all I see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 2, 2009 11:49 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Bet current public opinion is that Obama got sucker-punched -- not that Obama made a reasoned try for bi-partisanship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
September 2, 2009 11:57 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
And they've been doing it, and doing it, and doing it. In fact, they've been doing it since January 2007, when, during the 110th Congress, the Senate shattered the previous record for filibusters before the session was even half over. And, somehow, the Village MSM has managed to not report it -- not for the last eight months, but in fact, not for the last two and a half years.
What on Earth makes you think anything is going to change now.
I wonder who wrote this just two days ago?
Oh yeah, that was The Commenter Formerly Known As NCSteve.
So has something suddenly changed in the last 48 hours to make us think that the Village MSM will now see the light?
But there must have been something. Couldn't possibly be just another excuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
September 2, 2009 12:34 PM
For Snowe to get on board, the public option will have to be taken off the table. I believe her plan does have the public option trigger in it, so maybe the Dems could negotiate an automatic trigger (rather than a vote should the benchmarks not be met) as well as having more say in shaping/setting the trigger benchmarks.
Moderate Republicans are going to be under tremendous pressure to vote no - so the Dems will have to give them a lot in order to get their vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
September 2, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
I have a feeling we're going to end up with a trigger, but how it works will be the real indication of how the deal was struck. Snowe's in a blue state, and if she doesn't play ball, it'll be easy to scapegoat her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Salmo
September 2, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to jerryfatheart
Snowe gets a lot of adulation here in Maine, and she will get past any attack based on her stance on health care reform. She isn't vulnerable even if she decides to seek another term - which isn't a foregone conclusion. I would not expect much from her, and her vote will cost far more than it is worth. Obama and the Congressional leadership of our party simply have to be willing to stand alone - no Republicans, no problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
September 2, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Moderate Republicans = oxymoron
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
September 2, 2009 1:50 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
No amount of compromise will make repubs vote yes on health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Salmo
September 2, 2009 12:49 PM
Why, oh why, can't Democrats in Washington simply do what they promised when we elected them? It's not hard to know what that was. Things haven't changed all that much. The Democratic majority is more than adequate to get the job done. For heavens sake, just do it - vote and let the losers last November whine all they want. Who cares what Chuck Grassley thinks outside of Iowa? John McCain's weak points during the campaign, the reasons he lost overwhelmingly, were exactly the policies not being debated in Congress. Why does our vote count so little? Bipartisanship is nothing but a cry for help from the losers, made worthless by their own statements and actions. Only a fool and coward would continue to pay any attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
September 2, 2009 12:54 PM
Memo to Obama, Rahm and Axelrod: Quit worrying about whether the Republicans will respect you in the morning. They are hookers, who cares? You are the boss, you are the majority. Get it done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
September 2, 2009 1:23 PM in reply to traitorjoe
LMAO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
prouddem
September 2, 2009 2:11 PM in reply to traitorjoe
No less a sage than Dancin' Tom Delay said, inter alia, when the GOP was in the majority, "We don't need to win the votes of the minority, just a majority of the majority." The math may not be the same currently, but a little bit of this type of thinking from the Democrats would be a tad refreshing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tulkinghorn
September 2, 2009 12:59 PM
Where is the punishment for Enzi and Grassley? They have spurned the carrot, now Obama needs to hit them with the stick.
LBJ, would that you were here to guide us!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
September 2, 2009 1:19 PM
It's about time.
This should be the message to every health care reform opponent -- over and over again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
September 2, 2009 4:52 PM in reply to Moose49
Amen!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
September 2, 2009 1:26 PM
The stimulus checks for the states of Enzi and Grassley should accidentally be lost in the mail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
September 2, 2009 1:32 PM
Why is the Administration the only people in the world who thought these guys really wanted healthcare reform?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
September 2, 2009 2:34 PM in reply to Winston Smith
Why do you think that that fact is only obvious to you and not the White House? You know, sometimes a strategy is just a strategy. I could understand your thinking if members of his administration were new to DC (remember how Obama was slammed for bringing in DC alumni?), but they are not. So they know how the GOP works and thinks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 2, 2009 11:53 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Dear Trusting Soul--- All these tried hands have done a really effective job so far? Not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
September 2, 2009 1:49 PM
If the hammer doesn't come out and strike down any opposition to the public option, then I'm for a new party of progressives and labor! I'm tired of the lack of conviction and leadership from old school democrats who dare to ask for a trigger to a public option. Don't try and fool us!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 2, 2009 5:08 PM in reply to Progressive Party
What is it, exactly, that you want them to do? "Hammer come down," "fight," blah de blah de blah blah blah.
What is it, precisely, that you think they should be doing? Not what they shouldn't do. No vague exhortations. What specific actions are you recommending/demanding?
I keep asking this, but no one will answer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 3, 2009 12:01 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Stirring rhetoric about why public option will work and is needed and how the Democrats will extract a political price from those who oppose it. 'Private' arm-twisting. War room type counters to Republican canards.
Stopping whining about how you want bipartisnaship when you can't get it. No private deals with Big Pharma. No mealy mouthed moanings about how public option is a good thing but you're really willing to settle for something less that maybe, kinda, sorta, looks like it.
Committing to a plan and fighting for it rather than attempting to sell the public in advance on what ever camel of a plan the several committees in Congress are going to come up with.
These are the things I'd like to see.
I haven't a clue as to what Obama is actually fighting for in this instance other than having some kind of a bill passed on his watch.
Come on, Steve, did you really expect to find Obama in this bad of political shape this early?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
September 3, 2009 10:32 PM in reply to AJM
I predict deafening silence from NCSteve. It's his MO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 2, 2009 1:52 PM
Gee, how much is Axelrod the genius being paid to have finally figured out the Republicans don't give a damn about health care reform? How much are we paying that nitwit anyway? What a pathetic crowd of weaklings Axelrod, et al are turning out to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
September 2, 2009 1:58 PM
Baucus should be invited to leave the party for ever having been sucker enough to choose these two to sit at the table. Then we'd have a moderate Republican to negotiate with.
Short of that, he should at least loose his chairmanship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
prouddem
September 2, 2009 2:24 PM in reply to wyt
No wyt, kicking Baucus out of the party or even stripping him of his chairmanship is not subtle enough. It is more a tactic of the GOP which is narrowing its ranks by summarily expelling those pols not strictly within its narrowly defined orthodoxy. Two dems from Montana is good for the party and requires patience. Besides, I think Baucus, himself, will support the public option (if Obama keeps it in!)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 3, 2009 12:04 AM in reply to prouddem
That's his cover while running his negotiations in such a way as to give the Republicans their best shot at sinking the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
September 2, 2009 2:33 PM
what does the White House think will happen to the rest of Obama's agenda if he does back fully the public option. In my opinion it's far to fight for the public option and lose rather be complicit in a water down bill with the insurance companies in complete control. The GOP will win the health care reform battle and we have no win for the people who elected Obama in the first place. Labor has sent him it's message and all legislation battles will follow the same GOP game plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
annieratna
September 2, 2009 3:08 PM
compromise is realistic, no? unless the organizing was strong on the ground, we weren't gonna get everything we wanted to as progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
September 2, 2009 3:52 PM
Its time to Rahm an Axelrod up Republican Assley Enzi!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
September 2, 2009 4:00 PM
This time, Axelrod and Rahm mean business, and if you don't believe them, they'll send you a strongly worded memo with their intentions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 2, 2009 4:04 PM
The last thing the Republicans want is an Obama/Democrat health care bill passing. If it did, it would probably mean another 20 years in the minority for the Repugs, after all, grandma would still be alive a year after the bill went into affect.
Any Democrat, adn that includes Obama, who beleives these cretins are bargaining in good faith is a complete ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
September 2, 2009 4:32 PM
Make it s moral issue.
If you believe that people with bad genes or bad luck or who are poor or underinsured should go bankrupt and go live in a van down by the river .....then force them to say so.
The argument that government can't do anything right has to be shot down.
The economics are on our side....yet we allow them to win that debate in public opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
September 2, 2009 5:17 PM
I can't say I'm happy with the health reform rollout, or Emmanuel's Blue Dogs, but the Rs have now publicly shot their wad. Obama has (appeared) to give the Rs and the moderates all sorts of opportunities, and they made it clear that they don't want reform, and don't want a public option because it will cost less (still can't believe even this batch of Rs were stupid enough to make that argument publicly).
ALL the political insiders know that the people most at risk if reform doesn't pass are the blue dogs. (other than those without insurance or can't afford their current insurance, of course) The progressives are generally pretty safe in their districts. The Rs stated agenda is to defeat reform. That leaves the blue dogs to suffer the wrath of the 70% of the country that want reform.
This whole kabuki may serve to create eventual political cover for the blue dogs. When push comes to shove, they will either have to vote with the president or against him, and at that point they'll have to vote with him if they want to stay in Washington. If they vote against him they lose the support of Ds at home and the independents who supported Obama in '08, and don't pick up any R votes who will vote for an R rather than an R-lite.
(That's not to say I think this was all carefully planned. Emmanuel is a blue dog and not supportive of progressive policy change, and there was probably too much misplaced hope that Rs wouldn't act like Rs - but that also doesn't mean the current strategy isn't a well-considered Plan B).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
September 2, 2009 10:42 PM
I ope this means that Obama is about to lower the boom on the GOP when he speaks before the JMOC next week. The GOP are probably really running scared about this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?