TPMDC
Progressive House Leaders to Meet Obama Ahead of Wednesday Speech
Brian Beutler | September 4, 2009, 3:11PM
Share
Send to a friend!
Looks like we'll have to wait a few more days before we know whether House liberals will make peace with the Obama administration. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey appeared on MSNBC moments ago and reported that, in an afternoon conference call with the President, members reiterated their insistence on including a public option as part of health care reform.
However, she said, Obama didn't signal one way or another if he will ultimately get behind that position, and instead invited the co-chairs of the progressive caucus to a meeting at the Tuesday ahead of his big Wednesday health care speech before a joint session of Congress. By then, or perhaps sooner, we should have a clearer sense for where the White House stands.
We'll have video for you shortly.
Late update: Video below.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- High-End Grifters
- Another Huckabee Pardon
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- CBO: Health Care Reform Will Lower Out-Of-Pocket Burden For Most Consumers
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Family Guy Mocks Chris Matthews' Inflated Ego
- Latest High-Flying Accused Ponzi Schemer Has Ties To Indiana Guv
- Obama Issues New Orders On Afghanistan
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- Dems Add Entitlement Reform To Packed Agenda Ahead of 2010 Elections
- Huckabee Cites System's 'Failures' In Response To Washington Police Killings
- Gibbs: Social Office Not Problem With Dinner Crashers
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Return to Sender: Feigning Indifference & Losing My Religion
- Why Have We Subjugated Ourselves?
- Obstructionism Trumps Transparency
- Progressives (and Obama) are Doing Better Than We Think -- and We Won't Know What We've Got 'Til It's Gone
- Jeff Goldberg Faults Obama For Suggesting Settlement Expansion Leads To Violence
- A Dime In My Pocket
- Great Moments in CNN Journalism
- Return to Sender: Feigning Indifference & Losing My Religion
- Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
- The Pivot
- Basic Investment Advice
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Steve LaBonne
September 4, 2009 3:21 PM
They should call these poll results to the President's attention: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/4/776930/-Public-option-still-polling-strongly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 4, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
It appears that the White House is deliberately ignoring that data.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
September 4, 2009 3:48 PM in reply to CT Voter
Let's see if the Progressives can find out who voted to remove the Medicare 'Trigger' last week.
The House on Tuesday voted 242-181 to approve an operating rules package (H Res 5) that eliminates the Medicare trigger, which requires the president to submit a plan to contain Medicare costs if they reach a certain level, CQ Today reports. The trigger was approved as part of the 2003 Medicare law. Under the law, if 45% or more of the program's funding comes from general tax revenues for two consecutive years, the president must submit to Congress legislation that would slow spending over a seven-year period and make the program financially stable. The trigger went into effect for the first time last year!
The trigger will not hold down costs or provide competition or keep Corporates in line because Congress comes back to protect their DONORS every time..PO or removal and primary challenge 2010!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
September 4, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to CT Voter
That's ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
September 4, 2009 4:21 PM in reply to lousgirl84
My "that's ridiculous post" applied to the first post from CT VOTER
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 5, 2009 1:05 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Then why was the White House passing around polling data that omitted data on the approval for the public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 5, 2009 1:07 PM in reply to CT Voter
And I look forward to how you address that fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 5, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to CT Voter
Here's some data for you to ignore:
Arkansas has two Democratic Senators: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both of whom oppose the public option
60% of the people of Arkansas oppose the public option
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_AR_825.pdf
Lincoln's net approval rating is -8%
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/lincoln-basically-knotted-up-with-gop.html
How will you have Obama convince Lincoln to lower her approval rating by supporting a bill that is wildly unpopular in her state? Jedi mind tricks? Magic?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 7, 2009 11:47 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
My comment had to do with the fact that in an official memo about polling data, there was no mention of the fact that the public option remains significantly popular with the majority of voters.
Had the memo in question been a memo about how to deal with Senators from Arkansas, it would have made sense to ignore polling data on the public option. Or, rather, it would have made more sense to include the data from Arkansas. And yet, no mention, positive or negative, of data on the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 7, 2009 9:52 PM in reply to CT Voter
That depends on the poll, like this one from MSNBC that shows a plurality of people opposing the public option: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/18/2033674.aspx
Did you ignore that one? Maybe claims of people ignoring polls is just silly in general.
So anyway, how do you get the Senators from Arkansas to support the public option when Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln has a net -8% approval rating and the public option is opposed by 60% of her state? What greater threat can you make to her than she one faces by doing what you say?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 7, 2009 9:53 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
* Correction:
What greater threat can you make to her than the one she faces by doing what you say?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 8, 2009 12:13 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
You're still not getting the point.
The comment was "That's ridiculous!". The evidence suggests otherwise. The fact that there was polling data that supported the public option, or opposed the public option and THAT data was left out of an official memo about polling data is a fact, not a ridiculous claim.
And your obsession with Blanche Lincoln and getting her to do anything is really beside the original point. Pick a fight if you want, but you're fighting me about something I didn't say rather than what I actually said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 8, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to CT Voter
You're still dodging the question of how to pass a public option through the Senate and you're still engaging in hypocritical behavior. Your comment on "ignoring" information came before "that's ridiculous." Your dishonesty leads you to make stuff like that up, while also ignoring the three polls I showed you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 8, 2009 7:59 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
Ok. A little chronology: the White House releases a memo, omitting any information about polling for the public option. SteveLaBonne makes a comment about how he hopes the WH is aware of that information. I say that it's apparently ignoring it. Someone says "That's ridiculous" without including anything substantive. You hop on the thread and focus on Blanche Lincoln.
I don't give a shit about Blanche Lincoln OR Mark Pryor, nor was I advocating about how to pass healthcare reform that Blanche Lincoln would approve of, given her circumstances (wrt polling data). You want to accuse me of lying, and ignoring information, go right ahead.
But you're attributing a lot of shit to my comments because you misunderstand what I was referring to in the first place.
The White House omitted information that was readily available. Information that was favorable to the public option, and information that wasn't.
I said that was ignoring it. And that apparently chaps the hides of you and some others. Sorry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 8, 2009 11:45 PM in reply to CT Voter
You cited the comment "that's ridiculous" as the point, yet it's not what you claim is the point. "That's ridiculous" was said after your ignoring comment. You're hung up on your word choice of ignoring, and since your ignoring comment came before "that's ridiculous" you're moaning about "that's ridiculous" doesn't make any sense.
Let's go back to ignoring, since you like the chafing it gives you. Did you ignore that MSNBC poll I showed you that said that a plurality of people don't want the public option?
Good for you for not caring about Blanche Linclon or Mark Pryor. You're ignoring the problems of passing the public option through the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 8, 2009 8:04 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
And if you still think I'm dodging questions, deliberately ignoring information, and behaving hypocritically, go up to the top of the thread and start over, ok?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 8, 2009 11:48 PM in reply to CT Voter
No need to start over. The question of how do you convince Blue Dog Senators who face more pressure for their constituents than Obama can muster stands. You choose to dodge that question.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 9, 2009 11:00 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
I'm not dodging the question. You're the person who introduced that particular question, not me, and I'm not interested in trying to find a way to convince Blanche Lincoln of anything.
My comment had to do with what the White House is doing with polling.
You're interested in something else, and think I'm merely trying to avoid what you're interested in. Not so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 9, 2009 3:12 PM in reply to CT Voter
Well that's hypocritical for you to to be accusing the White House of ignoring polling on the public option while you ignore the same, as well as state polling on the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 9, 2009 5:07 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
I'm not accusing the White House of ignoring it--I'm pointing out that fact.
What is your problem, anyway? I make a comment about topic A, and you accuse me of failing to explain how to solve problem B.
And call me a hypocrite, to boot. What are you getting so personal?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 9, 2009 6:11 PM in reply to CT Voter
You can see that your argument is reduced to semantics now? Your defense of saying that the White House ignored a poll, while you yourself ignore one national poll, one state poll and one poll on a Senator is semantics. That's pretty weak, no matter what side of the issue you're arguing.
If you're really out of ammunition, then there's nothing left to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 4, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
No decent argument against a Public Option
Public support for a public option
personal mandates forcing families to buy insurance, but subsidies all ready being lowered in Committee
the public option being one of the best ways to bring competition and lower the rates we'll be forcing people to pay
why should we fight for a public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 5, 2009 4:50 PM in reply to Indie Pro
No decent argument against a public option. No decent argument that a public option can become law in 2009 or 2010.
* Senate reconciliation is a non-starter. Reconciliation can effectively be filibustered. * See proof below.
* Without reconciliation, you need the 60 votes. 5-6 Democratic caucusing Senators outright oppose the public option with another one (Conrad) possibly opposed and others on the fence.
* Putting pressure on these senators to pass the public option is highly unlikely to work. Look at the poll numbers I listed for the Senators in Arkansas to see why. Also, take the example of Joe Lieberman. He won by fighting against liberals, so how could you believe liberals would have any ability to pressure him?
We should fight for a public option over the span of several years, building on what we have now, and then we'll have to less reform to pass later. At the very least we should be ready to take a trigger, which we can also modify when the economy and the budget is not so messed up.
---------------------------
*** "Reconciliation requires 50 votes plus the Vice President for final passage only. During the process of reconciliation on the Senate floor there are countless votes that require 60 votes because it requires you to waive the rules of reconciliation - that's done constantly in every single reconciliation process that goes to the Senate floor. They can't think about going to the Senate floor without 60 votes whether they're doing it in reconciliation or outside of reconciliation."
- Lawrence O'Donnell
Former Democratic Chief of Staff of the Senate Committee on Finance and blogger at the Huffington Post
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32696599
Time Index on Video 3:30
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
September 4, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I think the White House is pretty informed on public opinion. Dkos's poll is not unique, there are other polls that say PO is still popular.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
September 4, 2009 3:27 PM
According to Greg Sargent, ABC and now CNN have agreed to air the Republican Rebuttal to the Presidents speech on Wednesday. It's expected that all networks will agree to do the same.
(I wonder if Fox will juat air the rebuttal)
It hasn't been revealed who will get the job of giving the rebuttal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
September 4, 2009 3:34 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Oh please please please let it be Bobby Jindal! Or Michele Bachmann would be good, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
September 4, 2009 4:55 PM in reply to Xantar
When it comes to elephant shit crazy, why settle for half measures, bring on Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 4, 2009 4:26 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
So they plan to return to their regularly scheduled programming? Fair enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stanjz
September 5, 2009 12:19 AM
Chuck Norris has my vote to give the rebuttal. That would be a laugher.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
atticus1104
September 5, 2009 12:34 PM
Republicans will stop at nothing to make themselves out to be the good guys in this health care debate. Even give credit to Bush for SCHIP. This video is unbelievable.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2795
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bob5540
September 5, 2009 10:25 PM
It's simple, really: No guts, no glory.
http://55-40.blogspot.com/2009/09/hope.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hawaiian
September 5, 2009 11:39 PM
If the Pres would get real, for a change, (change we can believe in), and just tell the truth and say, " Its a Government Option " , the shock is what it would take to over come the idea that the Green Jobs Czar is a WhiteHater and writes song about how mush he hates Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?