TPMDC
OFA: Those Public Option Talking Points Were a Goof...But They're Not Wrong
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
We noted earlier that President Obama's political arm Organizing for America had distributed internal talking points urging organizers to describe the public option as a "small part" of health care reform.
Apparently, though, that was a bit of a snafu--the talking points emerged at the state level, were not approved from up on high--and the group doesn't stand by them. Instead, they're sticking with the bullet points on OFA's website, which describes Obama's plan as one that includes a public option.
That said, OFA isn't completely disavowing the idea behind the erroneous talking points, noting that it came from Obama himself. An OFA spokesman says, "The talking points may have been inartfully worded, but aren't really that different from what the President has said all along."
"The president wants to sign a bill that reduces costs and increases access--and he believes the public option is the easiest, but not necessarily the only, way to achieve that goal."
OFA used to have a somewhat harder line on the public option, but has moderated it somewhat as the the health care fight has drawn on.
Comments (16) | 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.
Indie Pro
October 1, 2009 3:23 PM
Let me change that for you:
"The president wants to sign a bill that reduces costs and increases access [for insurance companies to get all the US as customers]--and he believes the public option [goes against the insurance company's interest in this regard]."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
21stCenturyMan
October 1, 2009 4:46 PM
I have no idea if Obama would sign a bill that mandates everyone buy shitty, overpriced insurance from the same companies that have stolen us blind already... but several millions of us have made it clear at whitehouse.gov that such a move will end the support that won him the Presidency.
I doubt Olympia Snowe can donate $50 million per month to his upcoming reelection campaign. The liberals he will drive away certainly would have - sans his caving to moderates, republicans, blue dogs, big pharma, bipartisanship, whatever. Take your pick; it won't matter why he caves, just that he did. I hope the Democrats enjoyed being the minority party all those year because if they deliver healthcare reform that is a gift to the insurance, hospital, and drug industries - they'll soon be complaining how the Republican Majority never let's them play.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
October 1, 2009 5:04 PM in reply to 21stCenturyMan
I agree with your thoughts that creating PUBLIC PLOICY that mandates the purchase of private insurance coverage without a choice to a public option is insane. Let alone besides the point that we would be paying preiumns and co-pays but billions more would come from gov't subsidies. You summed up correctly the price Obama and the dems will pay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
October 1, 2009 5:36 PM
let me put it this way; while i respect president obama and had high hopes for him; and while i was a hard working volunteer for then senator obama; he and the organizing for america need to realize for many of us the public option was the compromise. we bought into and believe completely, without a means to bring true competition to the marketplace, and should the baucus fiasco become the bill president obama signs which does no more than give more taxpayer money, not less, to the health insurance industry; i will not donate one more cent to either the organizing for america, the dnc, the dncc, the dnga or any other democratic group so soliciting from me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
October 1, 2009 5:41 PM
Your request is being processed...
Senate Committee Passes Quasi-Public Option Amendment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/senate-committee-passes-q_n_306831.html
Only Sen. Lincoln voted against.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
October 1, 2009 5:58 PM in reply to wbgonne
I've only been able to glance at the article, but isn't this good news? Now when Harry Reid blends the committee bills together, he's working with one that has a real public option and one that has a weak, possibly cop-out public option. In any case, it now means a government program will be in the bill that comes out of the Senate going into committee with the House bill. What am I missing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 1, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Xantar
it is an interesting development. somewhat positive. but a very weak response to what people are calling for.
it will offer no succor to those forced to buy increasingly expensive insurance. No competition. No national bargaining ability. It's worthless as it is. But somewhat positive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
October 1, 2009 6:40 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Well, I've has mixed feelings about the SenFinCom including a half-assed PO. But on balance, I think it's positive because it shows that even Baucus and Conrad (about whom I've been especially concerned) are not categorically opposed to the concept of a public plan. Makes all the more likely, I think, that they will vote for cloture. Of course, we STILL have to get a REAL public option into the bill.
BTW: What is the story with Sen. Lincoln? Anybody from Arkansas?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 2, 2009 8:03 AM in reply to wbgonne
How sweet, Sen. Lincoln even voted against the "Honey Bear, I shrunk the public option amendment" that Carper sent to the insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prefers Coffee
October 1, 2009 6:19 PM
As an OFA organizer from the beginning I can say with certainty that no one ever gave volunteers here any talking points that communicated diminishing the emphasis on a Public Option and more importantly, no one would have let them. This isn't a top down structure, that's what the Tea Party is for: people swallowing any baloney they are told.
Our organizers have been clearly and aggressively communicating the desire for a Public Option up the food chain to OFA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
October 1, 2009 7:03 PM in reply to Prefers Coffee
Good to hear. Keep up the great work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
October 1, 2009 6:36 PM
The letter I got from OFA yesterday said nothing at all about a public option but included a flyer telling me health reform was about ECONOMIC GROWTH.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
October 1, 2009 7:08 PM in reply to bluebell
Is that wrong? Health reform is indeed about economic growth. It's just that it's also about compassion and morality and, basically, everything else that's decent in civilization.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
October 1, 2009 8:31 PM in reply to Xantar
Yeah, well all that other stuff you mentioned wasn't in the letter. The letter aimed to "grow our economy" one conservative talking point after another, blah, blah, blah, makes me sick. Who knew we elected Newt Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 1, 2009 10:46 PM in reply to bluebell
Um, Bell? They're trying to convince people who are doubting the need and give arguments to people who are convinced but are talking to those who aren't. It's not really surprising that they're not trying to make arguments that people who are already convinced would find convincing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
October 2, 2009 7:20 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I'm not on their mailing list because I'm a hard core conservative. If you are marketing conservatism to liberals, I assume that's what you are trying to sell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?