TPMDC

If Public Option Isn't Dead, Why Is Axelrod Referring to Its "Spirit"?

Brian Beutler | September 2, 2009, 2:34PM

Read More

Barack Obama, Budget Reconciliation, David Axelrod, Health Care, Nancy Pelosi, Public Option, White House

Share

Fark

Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

The Obama administration is sending out its strongest signs yet that it's willing to scrap a public option in order to move a health care bill forward. White House adviser David Axelrod tells ABC News that what remains of Obama's desire for a public option is largely theoretical. "The spirit that led him to support a public option is still very much at play here and so you know he wants competition. He wants choice."

And an anonymous White House official tells Politico "We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition."

If the administration has concluded that a public option won't fly (or has at least decided not to fight for it) it will be implicitly siding with the Senate in the congressional fight over the direction health care reform should take.

A critical number of House progressives have vowed not to support a health care bill without a public option, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has affirmed that she can't pass legislation without one.

But if the White House and Senate are unified behind the idea that the public option is itself optional, it will dramatically shift the weight of the fight against including one.

All of this is assuming that Democrats don't try to pass a bill on their own, through the so-called budget reconciliation process. As we detailed yesterday, the reconciliation option might in some ways make creating a more robust public option more likely--but it's hard to imagine vulnerable and skeptical Dems going to bat for a public option in that context if the White House isn't willing to put up a fight.

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!

93 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

September 2, 2009 2:42 PM

Sorry to be a little on edge, but who cares? This article doesn't do a damn thing for me.

Btw, OT, did you know that Pfizer settled the largest criminal fraud settlement in US history today? WAY buried:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/pfizer_to_pay_record_23b_penalty_over_promotions.php?ref=fpc

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

VivaAmerica!

September 2, 2009 2:43 PM

This is getting really tiresome. Wake me once the votes are in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:06 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!

Don't have a taste for goat entrails either?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!

I'm with you, but you should also call your Congress critters. . .

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to CT Voter

Hey I am FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION

I've been to DiFi's office, written countless emails and am set for an HCAN/OFA rally this evening at City Hall

I am an auto giver on OFA and spend a good deal of my time trashing a friend/medical insurance broker for opposing the public option

The polls supporting the PO that RichinNJ cites, I cited two weeks ago

I just don't have a taste for fried chicken little legs or goat entrails

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 11:25 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!

Feel free to, y'know, not read the posts....

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:44 PM

I have never felt so betrayed by the Democratic Party. Obama ran his campaign on this and now he has capitulated to the insurance industry to the detriment of everyone who voted for him. Let the Democratic Party DIE. It is now dead wood, sea timber washed up ashore, dried, and ready to burn. We knew the Republicans were corrupt and liars, but the Democrats have now proved to their own base just how unloyal they are to their constituents. They have failed in their most basic responsibilities to the voting public.

The Obama administration would have us believe that they can afford $250 - $300B a year for war, and a military budget at about $500B, but they can't afford $100B/yr for proper public health care. No way do I buy this bullshit. In fact, it is time for a clean sweep. It is time to destroy the two party system once and for all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:48 PM in reply to maynard

Then let's find a way to make state and federal elections far less expensive, so that third party candidates can win consistently, instead of only once in the last 40 years.

When a Senate race in South Dakota can cost over $30 million, the libertarian party and green party and the other political parties not named Democratic or Republican have no chance to compete.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dswx

September 2, 2009 2:57 PM in reply to maynard

Sorry, that is not correct. Americans voted for Obama primarily to fix the wrecked economy (which he is doing). That was the base of his campaign. Health care, while very important, was not *the* major player. It, just like energy and climate change, was a piece of the campaign. Americans know that the Republicans have *nothing* to offer on those fronts aside from their proven failed policies. Sorry to inform you the bad news but the economy is slowly improving thanks to Obama and the stimulus bill, which is not even fully effective.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:31 PM in reply to dswx

That's not my recollection.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to maynard

If that was your recollection, then why were you whining before saying you were so disappointed in him??????

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to dswx

Amen. Thank you. I am so sick of all these whiners, with nothing to whine about yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to maynard

Stop reacting to every little word that the media is fixated on which "could mean this" or "could mean that" . I suggest you all wait until you hear it out of the President's mouth before you go all crazy and disappointed and shit.

The man is in office 8 months and is trying to solve a zillion problems and all you can say is your disappointed. Then go and vote for a fucking republican in 2010 and 2012. Let me know how well that works out for you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:44 PM

No matter which way you slice it, this isn't good. Either President Obama really isn't committed to the ideals he espoused during the campaign (he certainly wouldn't be the first politician to do so) or he knows the Republicans have him beat and he's just trying to lose by one touchdown instead of five touchdowns (a backdoor cover, in sports betting terms).

Either way, Ted Kennedy is turning over in his grave, because this is not going to be anywhere near what he had spent much of his career working for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 2, 2009 3:21 PM in reply to jdb316

Let's assume, for purposes of argument, that this isn't just another rerun of the pattern whereby progressive blog readers get into s snitstorm because some bloggers read volumes into chicken bones cast by some half-witted Village journalists.

The point you're missing is that Teddy spent his entire career trying to get somewhere on universal health care and never got it. Even without a public option, this bill would take us, in one step, a hell of a lot further than Teddy ever managed to get in his entire 47 years in the Senate. No disrespect intended, to Ted, but that fact, I think, would inform his POV, don't you? Teddy was very much a guy who knew the outer limits of what was possible in a given Congress. He would get what he could from it and then come back later--sometimes much later, after what he got last time had become "the new normal,"--and get more.

Given that, I doubt very much he'd be turning over in his grave over a bill that accomplished more in one shot than he managed to achieve up to this point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:32 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Hi! My name is "Apologist"! What's yours?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation

September 2, 2009 3:45 PM in reply to maynard

Hi my name is "concern troll," what's yours?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 2, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to maynard

apol·o·gist Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpä-lə-jist\ Function: noun Date: 1640 : one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something

Me? I'm someone who's not really understanding why you thought this this was a devestatingly cutting remark.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:36 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Plus, Teddy would compromise to get this done. He would. He knew that progress comes in stages and he would give an inch so all these uninsured have a chance for health care.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to impik

But at what point do you draw the line in the sand? At what point do you tell the Republicans and the Blue Dogs who answer to Republican constituencies that you're not going to concede any more, that they're going to have to kill you to get anything more?

Along the same lines, at what point can you no longer afford to wait?

For whatever reason, Republicans don't want any reform. Maybe it's because the insurance companies give them too much money. Maybe it's because their constituents are so vehemently opposed to government intervention that they're blinded to the benefits of it in this case. Maybe they really do support it but put a higher priority on taking down Obama and those un-American libruhls. The exact reasons don't really matter. Bottom line is that the Republicans will never go for it. And since the Blue Dogs depend on appeasing otherwise Republican voters, they too will likely never go for it.

At some point, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of them have to show some you-know-whats and say "ENOUGH IS F'ING ENOUGH! WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE ANY MORE!!!"

For years, the Dems have been portrayed as the party of spineless wimps, the ones that will sell out the American people, the ones who don't have the guts to fight, to get dirty or even bloody to accomplish things. And the Dems fuel that portrayal by backing down in situations like this, in the misguided belief that, as former NFL coach Lou Saban once said, "half a loaf is better than no loaf at all."

The Republicans don't back down like that over something they consider so important to the American people. Why do the Dems?

I say "NO F&^%ING MORE!!!!!!!!!!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:19 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Another amen. Thank you NC Steve.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:46 PM

There is a reason that Obama's approval ratings are dropping. It's the discontent of the progressives who were the driving force behind his electoral victories, both in the primaries and the general election.

To make matters worse, a majority of the public supports a public option.

This is not the kind of change many people voted for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:47 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

Bingo.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation

September 2, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to EastWest

WRONG AGAIN.

You're on a roll.

Don't keep up the troll work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:53 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

There is a reason that Obama's approval ratings are dropping. It's the discontent of the progressives

Bullshit

Go ahead and make up more crap. We need more Glenn Becks on the left

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:54 PM in reply to johnmccsf

US: National Survey (Ipsos 8/27-31)
from Pollster.com
National

State of the Country
40% Right direction, 54% Wrong track (chart)

Obama Job Approval
56% Approve, 40% Disapprove (chart)
Democrats: 88 /10 (chart)
Independents: 54 / 37 (chart)
Republicans: 18 / 78 (chart)

2010 House National Ballot
42% Democrat, 34% Republican (chart)

As of right now, do you favor or oppose the healthcare reform proposals presently being discussed?
40% Favor, 45% Oppose (chart)

Do you favor or oppose...

Legislation to permit the creation of insurance co-operatives
NOT run by the government
54% Favor, 36% Oppose

Creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing
health insurance companies
49% Favor, 41% Oppose

Party ID
34% Democrat, 22% Republican, 45% independent (chart)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to johnmccsf

Fact of the matter is that it is Congress that is dragging down Obama's approval numbers, specifically its performance on health care

The public option has nothing to do with it. People see indecision and confusion. They see the Gang of Six. They see endless process stories and goat entrail readings

The public has only the foggiest idea of what the public option even is. They know more about death panels fer crissakes

(Pew)

Americans are extremely displeased with Congress, and there are already some signs that this could take a toll on the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. Currently, 37% express a favorable opinion of Congress, while 52% hold an unfavorable view. Positive opinions of Congress have declined by 13 points since April and are now at one of their lowest points in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys.
At the same time, intentions to vote Democratic in the next midterm election are markedly lower than they have been over the past four years. Voters are about evenly divided when asked how they would vote if the election for Congress were being held today: 45% say they would vote for a Democratic candidate in their district, or lean Democratic, while 44% say they would vote for a Republican or lean Republican. At about this point four years ago, Democrats led in the generic congressional ballot by 52% to 40% and went on to win a majority of the popular vote and regain control of Congress the following November.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:12 PM in reply to johnmccsf

Here's some more bullshit for you, Glen:

New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Public Option

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:15 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

Just proves my point, a point I have been making now for three months. People have NO idea what the public option is. Polls on this or any other specific vary wildly by wording.

Even its supporters don't know what the public option is

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:21 PM in reply to johnmccsf

You're an immature knave who rants like a spoiled child when someone disagrees with you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:09 PM in reply to johnmccsf

If your brain actually works, try responding to the post by rebutting it, otherwise you are demonstrating Beck-like idiocy.

Here's the factual support for my assertion:

A major factor in President Obama’s slide in today’s big Washington Post/ABC News poll, which is preoccupying the political classes today, is his surprisingly sharp drops among Democrats and even liberals, according to crosstabs that were sent my way.

Your turn, Glen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:12 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

Ditto CNN and Ipsos

The whiner wing of the Democratic party has an exalted sense of its own importance and righteousness

Fact of the matter is that if the dems do not pass a major hcr with or without the public option, no one will have to pay any attention to you chicken littles any more

A silver lining I suppose

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:16 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

If there is a point in your post that I have not rebutted, or decimated, please let me know

I will be happy to instruct

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to johnmccsf

The only thing that you have decimated is your online persona.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

That refers to what people think of his handling of specific matters, not his overall approval rating. That ABC/WaPO poll had his approval rating at 56%, higher than the number who voted for him and still very high among Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:06 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

His approval among Democrats is 90% in the latest CNN poll.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:14 PM in reply to FreeRider

He can't get reelected with just Democratic voters. Independents become more disenchanted with him as this nonsense drags on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:18 PM in reply to Schmed

The point is as RichinNJ would be the first to insist is

try responding to the post by rebutting it,

Am I right Rich?

Do I win a prize?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:24 PM in reply to johnmccsf

The prize for naïveté, because you fail to realize that a bad bill is worse than no bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:34 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

Damn straight. These assholes are going to force us all to buy junk insurance. The only winners here are the insurance industry. We are getting good and fucked by our own party leadership, and they didn't bring the lube.

But it would appear that some among us enjoy the action.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to maynard

Bringing some real class to the debate. Cheers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:21 PM in reply to maynard

I'm sure all those millions uninsured will agree with you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:35 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

You think passing a bill that makes more changes than have been made in 40 years would be worse than the status quo?

If you really believe that, you are as hopeless an ideologue as those on the Right crowing about death panels.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:41 PM in reply to Dorn76

There must be significant measures for cost containment. IMO, a public option is one of the best ways to achieve that. I don't think that position is ideological. It's not as if I am insisting on Medicare for All.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 2, 2009 4:24 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

Look, let's say the choice is, in fact, a health care reform bill with no public option or no bill at all.

I don't know that, I'm just following a hypothetical decision tree here, so work with me.

My view is that if no bill at all passes, that's it for another decade. Possibly two. Done, finito, fugeddaboutit. How do I know that? Because that's the way its been every other goddamned time a Democratic president has tried to get this done. Under Truman, under Kennedy/Johnson, and under Clinton. And each time, the opposition and the debate has gotten uglier than the last. I think, after this mess, if nothing passes this time, the whole issue becomes more radioactive than all the nuclear waste that's never going to go into Yucca Mountain. And we probably lose Congress in 2010, or at least lose a lot of seats, to boot.

On the other hand, if the bill passes without a public option, we've changed the political equation, established a new normal, and, hopefully, saved our asses for the next Congress. A bill in the next Congress to create a public option becomes possible and it would be one bill about one issue over which we can have a focused fight. And, to boot, the insurance industry will be even more isolated from the provider and insurer lobbies.

Me? I want it all, and I want it all in one trip to the buffet bar. But if I can't have it all in one trip, I'd damn well prefer to have it in two trips rather than sit at an empty table and sullenly starve to death to show everyone how pure and principled I am.

And I really, truly just can't understand why anyone would rather starve.

The only thing I can figure out about that attitude is that it comes from a conviction that any half-measure necessitated by political reality is actually just a cover for a big sell-out to the evil corporations that has been the actual secret plan all along.

I have to admit that people who are go around expecting betrayal and who interpret every concession to political reality as the denoument of some long-laid corrupt plot make me so crazy. Honesty compels me to admit that the reason is they make me crazy is that they remind me of people who have lifelong intractable trust issues becuase they can't get over the fact that their parents got divorced when they were kids. And I used to be one of them until I hooked up with another one for a while (a while that seems like an eternity, in hindsight). At which point I saw what I pain in the ass dating me was for every woman I'd been with going back to adolescence and I was finally motivated to grow the hell up and get the hell over it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 9:14 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I think a fair compromise is to let people over a given age (50 or 55) buy into Medicare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:21 PM in reply to Dorn76

Yes. The devil is in the details, and right now it would appear they have chosen Massachusetts as the model for which to saddle their constituents with a requirement for expensive junk insurance. The only winners here are the insurance companies.

This is outright war declared by government and the private sector against the entire citizenry of this country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:40 PM in reply to maynard

You sound amazingly like Michelle Bachmann.

And I really don't mean that as a compliment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to CT Voter

So outline the comparison. Take my quote then take a relevant quote by Ms. Bachmann and show us all how my words compare to hers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 5:17 PM in reply to maynard

The hyperbole in your remark is what I was referring to. "Outright war" by the government? And private insurers?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:27 PM in reply to maynard

You are sounding like an idiot? The more you post, the worse it gets

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:36 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

Peace Rich and my apologies

I have no beef with you

I blame Elana errr..Beutler for the persistent public option panic attacks

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:50 PM in reply to johnmccsf

the spirit of Elana lives on...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:28 PM in reply to johnmccsf

I may have missed a few antecedents, but your rejoinder to mine (?) is a little cryptic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:32 PM in reply to Schmed

Just pointing out to Rich -- the significance of the polls showing solid and continuing support from Dems and a drop in independents is as you say it is

The facts, however, are not as Rich claims...ie that the drop in Obama's approval have any relation whatsoever to his support or lack of support for the freakin public option!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to johnmccsf

The facts are documented by the poll I cited that was originally linked to at TPM. Stop pretending otherwise.

Polls, however, are a snapshot in time of an often volatile dynamic. If you choose to ignore the fact that there is discontent among a significant portion of progressives, that's your right. Like me, you don't really matter. But the same cannot be said of the powers that be. As I said, the worst possible outcome is a bad bill.

Anyway, carry on with your fatuousness.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:43 PM in reply to Schmed

What are you talking about? Rich said Obama is losing the base. I pointed out that his approval rating is 90% among Democrats, same as it's always been.

You wanna talk about an election 3 1/2 years away? Knock yourself out but excuse me for not joining yu.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:39 PM in reply to FreeRider

Me too. I'm not joining or buying this b/s

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 2, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to Schmed

Uh, hello? 2009, not 2012. Go take a look at Bill Clinton's numbers in 1993.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:25 PM in reply to Schmed

So who are those disenchanted independents going to vote for. The party of No?

I doubt it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:32 PM in reply to Schmed

So who are those independents going to vote for? The party of No? I doubt it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 2, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

No matter how many times you guys say that, the polling data just hasn't backed it up. He's losing support among independents and Republicans. Kos/Research 2000 showed a dip in support from Democrats last week but they're alone in that.

Wanna argue about normative policy issues? Great, have at it. But don't make empirical statements that are supported by actual facts. That's what the other guys do. We're supposed to be the reality based party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 2, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Er, that would be "don't make emperical statements that aren't supported by actual facts."

(One should also not type things that make no sense, but, it happens.)

And speaking of "it happens," as it happens, he's bounced back four percent in two polling days (in a three day rolling average poll) from that Gallup low everyone had their Pampers in a twist over last week.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:50 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

But don't make empirical statements that are supported by actual facts. That's what the other guys do.

No typo there...you were just channeling Rush for a moment. I hope you took a shower :P

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:50 PM

The public option has been dead from day one. The Obama people like Orszag have been talking about the 'concept' of long term cost control --- the public option has never been a do-or-die piece of that concept. As far as Conrad's co-ops are concerned, why is the press so silent on it? I'd like to see to some enterprising reporters begin to press the ball on fleshing out the co-op idea...ie. How it will work. Will it work? Will it be a regional type thing or a national co-op where everyone can participate? Will there be a trigger mechanism for a robust public option if co-ops fail to lower premiums?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:51 PM

TPM continues to read goat entrails
Let's get something to a vote.
I don't think I can endure this foolishness much longer

According to Jonathan Weisman at Bloomberg, President Obama is going to unveil his newly revamped health care reform strategy at the AFL-CIO's annual labor day blowout picnic in Cincinnati, along with John Sweeney and Richard Trumka.
If that's true and it's also true that the White House is essentially jettisoning the public option, that could be an awkward day in the park.

Goat entrails

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:31 PM in reply to johnmccsf

Yeah, why would AFL-CIO even give this Obama guy the time of day?!

I mean really! A Democratic President? What could Labor possibly have to say to him?!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:41 PM in reply to johnmccsf

I doubt Obama will give up the PO when talking to the AFL-CIO. Richard Trumka been very vocal about the PO being a line in the sand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:54 PM

Maybe all of you people freaking out might want to wait and actually hear what he has to say and, see what actually happens, before you start running around with your heads on fire. Jesus. You people start crying and running in the other direction as soon as there's the slightest shift in the wind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 2:59 PM in reply to plan69

Ditto. My one complaint about Obama is that the PERCEPTION of his presidency is that it's either going great and he's letting the GOP hang themselves, OR that he's way behind and screwed it all up. Usually he's come out smelling like a rose. And with HCR, I personally think things are going to turn out just fine. But there's GOT to be a better way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:23 PM in reply to Shrubbit

With the proliferation of political blogs and "nanostories", his perceived ability as to his Presidential effectiveness can change by the hour. It's hard to know if it's just the normal ebb and flow of politics or if the person behind his health care messaging needs fired. My guess is that it's just a messy game of act and react.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to plan69

I think you have guessed correctly!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:34 PM in reply to Shrubbit

They made tons of mistakes, but it's not like there's some manual for how to pass HCR. They learned from Clinton's mistakes - Maybe even overlearned them - but they had no idea that August insanity would be so, well, insane. And i don't think they expected so much Blue Dogs resistance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to impik

"""Maybe even overlearned them"""

That right there is the winning comment. I think you're 100% right. They were stepping on egg shells trying to give leverage to Congress trying to avoid the Clinton fiasco... but failed to build in a flexibility that accounts for the current political/economic environment.

Okay, I think we've over-over-learned now on their behalf. Now let's pass the damn thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:35 PM in reply to plan69

I couldn't agree more. I have said almost the same thing many times before.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:00 PM

I applaud the progressives as the last chance and best hope for the public option. I think the WH will be making a huge mistake to take them for granted in dropping the public option. I will join the progressives in holding out demanding the public option or my contributions and work to get democrats elected will be only for progressives!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Joe Markowitz

September 2, 2009 3:13 PM

Your title is unfair. Axelrod does not say anything about the "spirit" of the public option. He says that the spirit that led Obama to support the public option is still alive. But Obama has been consistent in saying that he was never drawing a line in the sand about the public option. It is merely one way of reaching the goals of this bill, which are reducing costs and reaching universal coverage. All that being said, the public option itself is far from dead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Will work for shoes

September 2, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to Joe Markowitz

You took my comment. :)

The title is misleading and inflammatory. Did I wander over to Huffington Post by mistake?

That said, if the president will not draw a line in the sand on the public option I'd like to at least hear (again) him say that he will not accept anything that doesn't do exactly what the public option does. (Because we know that doesn't exist.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:32 PM in reply to Joe Markowitz

Exactly. He always said that he think it's the best option, but he never said that it's his line in the sand. For some reason, the PO turned into this huge symbol and got completely out of proportions.
I always thought that *the* most important thing is to insure the uninsured.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 6:37 PM in reply to Joe Markowitz

Thank you for trying to shed light. It is almost impossible = this place is full of whiners and doubting thomases.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:13 PM

the progressives will scream & organize, and so will the republicans. until the rest of america is on board we aren't gonna get the public option. it's gonna be some kind of middle compromise. obama will push as far as is safe, as any politicans would. yes he's committed to it ideally but it would be political suicide to dictate what congress does.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:24 PM

What I want to know is the speech Obama is slated to give scheduled for before or after the march on Washington, D.C. that will happen on September 13 (http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpfkgg). Maybe he ought to wait to see the turnout for that march, and for the MoveOn vigils tonight for the public option (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wordie/2009/09/moveon-public-option-candlelig.php?ref=reccafe), before he decides to jettison it.

Apologies for my horrible formatting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:29 PM

Unfortunately, there's a perception of a WH in disarray, confused, not listening to its base and scrambling to recover from attack.

That can't be good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to theWalrus

And that is what you get when you cede policy initiative to the US Congress

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 2, 2009 3:39 PM in reply to theWalrus

You realize the only people who think not listening to the base is a bad thing is the small percentage that makes up the base, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I see myself as a member in good standing of the base!

Seems I've been excommunicated

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:20 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

By "base" I mean the 66,882,230 people who cast a vote for Obama based, in part, on his promises for "change" and "transparency".

The American people spoke loud and clear and now we have what we wished for: a Dem President, a Dem House, a Dem Senate.

OK. Where's the big stick?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:38 PM

obama has to be everyone's pres- not just the base. this is a democracy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:24 PM in reply to annieratna

Majority rules.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:41 PM

GOD BLESS YOU FC

Not Happy
TPM Reader FC pleads, "Stop the madness!":

You're part of the problem. I don't expect much from Politico or AP because they're shills for the Republican Party. But I hold TPM to a higher standard. You're getting your readers worked up about some anonymous sources and Axelrod's language (I can't believe you're deconstructing the word "spirit") in order to start the whole hyperventilating-of-progressives cycle again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to johnmccsf

Time for Beutler to set sail for another Shor

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 3:46 PM in reply to johnmccsf

Am also disappointed with Kleefeld

I've always counted on Eric to anchor good ship TPM

He's obviously lost editorial control

Like herding cats

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 2, 2009 4:34 PM

Brian - I think you're a little too skeptical to the point that it colors your analysis. Negatively.

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
On Digg

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

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'