TPMDC
House Not Invited To Health Care Dance Party, No Merger Talks For WH Today
Christina Bellantoni | October 15, 2009, 1:24PM
United States Capitol
Share
Send to a friend!
With the focus on the Senate side of Capitol Hill, aides on the House side tell TPMDC they are just waiting patiently but not really expecting to be considered during the negotiations down the hall.
After deploying a 5-person health care team to kickstart talks yesterday, the White House has taken a step back. TPMDC hears there is no official meeting today as the administration lets Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid work through the merging of the two Senate bills and as he meets with his caucus.
The White House will stay involved in the process through staffers who hope to play a constructive role, but it's Reid's game now. (As Sen. Chuck Schumer said yesterday.)
As Brian noted, Nancy Pelosi is pushing hard on public option, but it's unlikely Senators are considering antyhing other than reaching the key 60-vote threshold on their end.
It's a long way off until a merged (and passed) Senate bill heads to the other chamber, and House aides suggested they feel irrelevant, for the time being.
There's a bit of a tug-of-war going on within the Democratic caucus, with liberals believing they should stand firm with Pelosi on a full public option and moderates fearing political consequences in 2010.
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
- The Pivot
- Basic Investment Advice
- Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Indie Pro
October 15, 2009 1:33 PM
So there is zero leadership coming from the Whitehouse?
The White House will stay involved in the process through staffers who hope to play a constructive role, but it's Reid's game now.
Is this political cover?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 15, 2009 1:58 PM in reply to Indie Pro
So there is zero leadership coming from the Whitehouse?
No
Is this political cover?
No
There is no such thing as a stupid question
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 15, 2009 2:04 PM in reply to johnmccsf
I see unqualified answers do exist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 19, 2009 7:09 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Hey Indie, my take still applies and looks more and more likely to me.
The White House cut a deal with insurers to either kill or neuter the PO in return for the industry not fighting the rest of reform and not financing the GOP in 2010-2012 and/or throwing some bucks the Dems way.
The little dustup last week between that insurance industry group and the WH was political cover for both sides.
The WH can't just come out against the PO without pissing off its base and going back on campaign vows so it just says reform is doable without the PO, backs the anti-PO senators behind the scenes and publically - repeated praise for Snowe, Baucus, etc. and the Baucus bill, not a word for Brown, Rockefeller and other strong PO advocates.
If somehow the progressive senators pass the PO without WH strong-arming, the WH will tell the industry we kept our promise and didn't lift a finger, and it would be true.
I voted for Obama and actually had hopes that he and the big Dem congressional majorities gave us a chance at another FDR-like epoch. So it's not like I am a totally cynical person likely see the worst in the WH. But everything I've seen leads me to the conclusions I've drawn now.
Yesterday's WH aides on the Sunday news shows toed the same line on the PO - we'd like it but we don't need it. If Harkin is right, and at least 52 Dem senators will vote for the PO, the WH could apply the pressure to get the other Dems to at least not vote in support of a filibuster, but they are not doing it. The fix is in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 15, 2009 1:59 PM
HOT MSNBC piece Christina!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 15, 2009 3:21 PM
"There's a bit of a tug-of-war going on within the Democratic caucus, with liberals believing they should stand firm with Pelosi on a full public option and moderates fearing political consequences in 2010."
If they pass mandates without a robust, open-choice public option, it will make the 94 mid-terms seem like the Democrats had made gains when Newt's Contract on America took over by comparison.
Mandate without strong open PO = political extermination for the Dems, beginning with the moderates and Blue Dogs first. The safe liberal seats would be the least endangered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?