TPMDC
Progressive Group Ad Targets Obama For Imperiling Public Option
Brian Beutler | October 24, 2009, 12:51PM
Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!
Share
Send to a friend!
Responding to news first reported by TPMDC, that the White House is pushing back on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's inclination to include an optional government insurance program in the Senate's health care bill, one of the left's most hardline progressive groups is taking aim directly at President Obama.
In an unprecedented move, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee will air a new TV ad, and is gathering signatures on an emergency petition, warning the administration not to support a health care compromise, favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), that could kill the public option.
The spot will air at least 100 times in Maine, augmented by an online fundraising drive. The group's recent ad targeting Snowe helped them raise over $100,000.
The petition reads, "Every day, insurance companies deny care and let people die. Getting one Republican senator's vote is not worth delaying reform -- too many real lives are at stake. We need you to fight and state clearly that anything less than a strong public option is not change we can believe in."
Over the course of the health care debate, liberal groups have targeted key senators standing in the way of reform. But though many on the left have long felt that the White House hasn't done enough to ensure the creation of a public option, PCCC is the first organization to make Obama the focus of a pressure ad. You can read their email to supporters below the fold.
XXXXX,Urgent news: Multiple media reports say that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up the votes needed for a public health insurance option, but "the White House is pushing back against the idea" in order to get the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
Tell the White House that the support of one Republican isn't worth a bad bill.
PLEASE SIGN OUR EMERGENCY PETITION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA TODAY:
"Every day, insurance companies deny care and let people die. Getting one Republican senator's vote is not worth delaying reform -- too many real lives are at stake. We need you to fight and state clearly that anything less than a strong public option is not change we can believe in."
Click here to sign the emergency petition. Then, please send this to others.
The Washington Post confirms that the White House "wants Snowe on the bill" and is seriously considering Snowe's proposed "trigger" -- which would delay, and effectively kill, the public option.
As Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) recently said, "Olympia Snowe was not elected president last year." Even her own constituents in Maine support a public option 2 to 1, and overwhelmingly oppose a trigger! Only the insurance industry supports Snowe's proposal.
We'll deliver this petition to the White House and let the media know about it. The more people who sign by Monday, the more powerful a message we'll send. Please sign today -- together, we can have an impact.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
--Aaron Swartz, Stephanie Taylor, Adam Green, Michael Snook, Natasha Patel, and the PCCC team
P.S. This petition comes on the heels of some amazing progress. Days after PCCC members chipped in to air a TV ad asking "if Harry Reid is strong and effective enough a leader to pass a public option into law," Reid is now "furiously working the phones" in support of a public option, according to the Huffington Post.
The New York Times quotes a Reid aide saying, "There is a growing sense that we need to lead on this issue...The idea is that it's better to show some fight." Exactly! Congrats, everyone -- our activism made a difference.
Now it's time to give the same push to President Obama that we gave Senator Reid. Please sign the emergency petition today.
* "Sources: White House Pushing Back Against Senate Public Option Opt Out Compromise," Talking Points Memo, September 23, 2009
"White House to Reid: We hope you know what you're doing," Washington Post, September 23, 2009
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Where Does This Leave Us?
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- Sarah Palin Goes Rogue With Bill O'Reilly
- Lincoln: "I'll Filibuster A Public Option Bill"
- Bernie Sanders: 'My Vote For The Final Bill Is By No Means Guaranteed'
- Stewart Takes Down KSM Trial Fearmongerers
- Owens Winning The Absentee Ballots In NY-23
- HCAN: "It's a Shame Not a Single Republican" Voted To Allow Debate
- All About the 60
- Lincoln: "I'll Filibuster A Public Option Bill"
- Landrieu To Reid: No Triggers, No Bill--Negotiating Compromise With Schumer
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Reid Slams Broder As A Retiree Who 'Writes A Column Once In A While'
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- 60! Blanche Lincoln Says She'll Support Health Care Debate
- RATIONAL RATIONING
- Senate Debates Historic Health Care Bill
- Sarah Should Take Her Shirt Off
- Bernie Sanders: 'My Vote For The Final Bill Is By No Means Guaranteed'
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
trblmkr
October 24, 2009 2:12 PM
Though I did sign the petition I think TPM is walking a VERY fine ethical line by being the news source quoted in a plea for signatures with direct links to a political advocacy group soliciting donations. The letter posted seems to be adressed to Mr. Beutler("Dear Brian"). Is mere memebership the full extent of his involvement?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 24, 2009 3:03 PM in reply to trblmkr
You make a very important point. What is fascinating is how it took just little over 24 hours to shift the pressure from Reid on to the White House.
At this point in the process, despite where the White House stands, I'm a little worried that pressure is off Reid. In fact, I read a rec'd daily on Kos last night bascially hailing Reid for being cured from Spine Flu.
While there is seems to be an enormous consensus that Reid in close to sealing a deal on public option and White House is now against it- the consensus is based on stories based on anonymous sources. I think at this point if Harry releases a senate bill will a PO, he will take the credit while if he doesn't include the PO it is the White House.
I always thought, and still do, passing a HCR bill is the greatest challenge- the biggest risk of its failure to pass in the Senate is real and still exists. While, I really don't care if progressive hurt the sentiments of White House or not, I do worry how Reid is being taking off the hot spot based on a few flimsy stories.
I cannot stress how important it is focus on the Senate and the few senators at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 24, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to kash79
Sorry for a few typos on the above post. Just want to add another point...right now its like yelling fire in a dark crowded theater, none of us know whether there is a fire and who yelled.
This thing is changing so fast, come Monday, some anonymous sources may say Reid doesn't have the votes for any kind of PO to be in the bill. Worse case scenario the anchor gauntlet has teared the dock of the democratic ship, a.k.a HCR died in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uneasyone
October 25, 2009 6:58 PM in reply to kash79
Putting pressure on Obama does not remove any pressure from Reid. More pressure can be applied to Reid anytime we choose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 24, 2009 4:42 PM in reply to kash79
Dude, you're not replying to my comment, you just want to jump to the top.
"You make an important point." Yeah, which one?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 24, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to trblmkr
What if what he says is more interesting?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 24, 2009 6:49 PM in reply to Dorn76
Just kiddin'. Actually what you are saying is far more interesting. I just wanted to be up there too...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
socraticgadfly
October 24, 2009 11:04 PM in reply to trblmkr
Is TPM starting to act like "old media"?
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/10/talking-points-memo-become-more-old.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
socraticgadfly
October 24, 2009 11:03 PM in reply to kash79
Not the first time on this issue somebody at TPM has used anonymous sourcing. Is TPM getting to be like "old media" as it decides that's the only way it can play inside-the-Beltway reporting?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 26, 2009 10:00 AM in reply to socraticgadfly
Unfortunately, yes it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 2:39 AM in reply to kash79
I think people are quite capable of pressuring Reid and the President at the same time. I think we are capable of pressuring Speaker Pelosi as well.
Like the president, I think we are all capable of doing more than one thing at a time. Especially when the Whitehouse seemingly begins working against progressives and for a faux Public Option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 25, 2009 8:18 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Roger that, Indie. I agree that it's good strategerie to simply apply pressure at every perceived weak point until this thing is @ the president's desk for signing. Of course, I also agree with other commenters who deride stories based on so many anonymous sources — especially anonymous WH sources.
Why do I draw a deeper line in the sand about WH deepthroats? In Obama's zeal to emulate Lincoln (as well as his evident exaggerated attempts at consensus building), he has either kept or collected a butt-load of former Repugs into his cabinet and on various staffs. While this level of hoary bi-partisanship may be admirable, one thing today's witches' brew political atmosphere proves over and over and over again is that most Repugs cannot be trusted, no matter who signs their official paychecks, to not continue serving their Party of No masters.
I often wonder exactly who or how many of these bipartisan appointments don't simultaneously act as sleeper cell agents working at cross purposes by becoming "anonymous sources close to the president" or other similar labeling. It would certainly answer a question of why there appear to be so many assertions from these anonymous sources that the WH is pushing X strategy and Gibbs or some other sourced mouthpiece comes forward refuting those statements, saying "No. The president's position is Y."
It would be quite interesting and, I believe, helpful if writers citing these anonymous sources would at least give enough info about the sources to have a better feel as to whether they hold some ideological loyalty to the president or not.
Of course, that would tend to do nothing clarifying in re: Blue Dog/DINO employees or former waivered lobbyist shill appointees (Rahm, anyone?).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 12:36 PM in reply to TheRealFish
I don't share many peoples kneejerk response to anonymous sources around here. I understand reporting.
What a consumer of news and opinion must do is find the news outlets, and opinion outlets that they find trustworthy. One that is proven.
TPM is a reliable, proven news source for me. They've broke many important stories over the years. Josh has created a good organization, and something wherer he had no model to copy. TPM is innovative and respected. If they get something wrong, they won't bury it. They'll own it. Anonymous sources is a vital part of reporting.
That being said, yes, pressure must be applied as you say. Some are hinting that no ammendments will be allowed on either floor once the bills are combined. The administration and Congress are holding their cards close to their chest and not allowing anyone to see what they are working on, so far. I don't like that. I fear they are gonna try to move this through fast with minimal debate. This after telling everyone, just let it get out of the committees, and then we'll hear concerns. Now, there are hints that, whoops, concerns will be ignored at the next step as well. Hey, but wait, we'll fix it in conference.
I fear the Whitehouse is gonna draw this down to where you either support reform however they define it (probably with triggers on a PO), or not. If they do that, my concern is reform will be defeated as a bailout to the insurance companies (where we the tax payers will be on the hook for ever increasing subsidies to an industry outside anti-trust laws, where there are no regulations regarding premiums and where they have threatened repreatedly they'll be raising premiums), and a sacrifice of the middle class, as many will get insufficient and even no subsidies, not to mention the level of care is not even established. If reform is proven as such, it'll deserve to be defeated as well.
Right now, it seems to me that Obama has chosen the least effective reform, as incrementalism, and is unwilling to truly take on the industry or lobbyist and actually win good reform.
Stagnant wages for decades for the middle class with increasing unemployment, with the concentration of wealth (which is ever increasing) being what it is, I think it is unjust and horrid to try to get HCR on the backs of the middle class, especially if you are offering very little reform. If they'd show us where there are, if this was an open process, like it was promoted, these questions might be answered, or be irrelevant.
let's see what Pelosi and Reid bring. Lets see how long they let people digest it. Lets see if they allow ammendments. Lets see if the govt works for the people, or continues to support the richest and the corporations. I'm trying to remain open, as I am given more and more reasons to feel skeptical.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 12:58 PM in reply to Indie Pro
and this should be mentioned as much as possible:
There is no reasonable argument against a Public Option. It lowers the cost of the bill. Offers competition. Can help in keeping premiums low. It should be available to all who want to purchase it.
To oppose it, to want to put it on a trigger, is to do what the Insurance Industry wants, along with strengthening mandates. I can't wait to see if they strengthen the mandates as the insurance industry is telling them to do, as the insurance industry threatens to raise premiums. No doubt pointing backwards to the three studies they've come out with. This is a mighty predator that HCR/Obama is unleashing, with mandates, on the general population and the treasury of the US.
If the mandates are strengthened as the PO is weakened, then you'll know where the Democratic Leadership (Obama) stands. With the industry. Especailly if nothing is done as far as antitrust laws, regulations, or even debating what mimimum policies should cover.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 25, 2009 4:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Thank you! Didn't even know the HC industry was exempt from anti-trust law until recently. So...good point. If they don't change that, that's all I need to know.
And HR 676 is just sitting there in the House. This is so aggravating. We know Medicare works. You could pay for it with an intelligently designed value added tax. You'd win at the polls...It should be so simple.
Yes, I know, I know: corporate money. But if everyone were covered quickly enough, it would pay off in votes, I think.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
October 25, 2009 12:39 PM in reply to kash79
This would be a problem if it wasn't EVERY NEWS SOURCE I HAVE READ SAYING THE SAME THING. All of them, TPM,KOS,POLITICO,DRUDGE,HUFFPO,OPENLEFT,NEXT RIGHT etc. They ALL say Reid was pushing for an opt out and Obama was they one that acted cooly to the idea and showed no cajones, ALL OF THEM. It's what happened, we can't deny that. Who would of thought it was Harry Reid that would be our hope and Obama would be the one lacking leadership.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
October 25, 2009 2:56 PM in reply to kash79
i signed the petition yesterday. i gave obama a piece of my mine. i told him, and i am paraphrasing, that we did not elect snowe, we elected him, and we the voter do not care about bipartsianship, just overhauling the system with a public option. we don't give a damn if there is not one republican vote. it just makes them look bad
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Josh Marshall
October 24, 2009 6:00 PM in reply to trblmkr
It was an error and against our policies not to strip out the links when the text of the email was pasted into the post. They've now been removed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
October 24, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Josh Marshall
We can do both, and Obama is by nature an appeaser, so we have to remind him who he works for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
October 24, 2009 8:38 PM in reply to MNPundit
Obama is by nature an appeaser? what kind of trash is that?
by wanting to work with others who have ideological differences, he's an appeaser?
ok, so i take it you loved the bush years then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 24, 2009 6:45 PM in reply to Josh Marshall
What about the anonymous sources, Josh? Alot of people are running with this idea that the WH is pushing back on a PO, yet they are denying it on the record. Not only that, but their PUBLIC statements have always supported a public option as the best way to guarantee the reform they want.
Obviously you are sitting on some good sources. Because if you're not, this is destructive journalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Josh Marshall
October 24, 2009 7:47 PM in reply to Dorn76
I think people are wrong to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the use of anonymous sources. And, as I mentioned in another thread, people's dislike of anonymous sources seems much greater when they don't like what the anonymous sources are saying. I'm quite comfortable with what we reported. And the White House denials, if you look closely at them, are quite thin.
On the subject of anonymous sources, do you (and I mean people in general) want to know what the White House's negotiators are saying behind closed doors? We are reporting what credible sources who are in a position to know directly are telling us they're saying. To say that that is not valuable information because the sources are not willing to go on the record (which is essentially impossible in a case like this) does not make sense to me. We made extensive use of anonymous sources when we reported the US Atty story and it would have been quite simply impossible to have reported otherwise. How many currently serving DOJ employees or defense lawyers involved in current cases do you think we were going to get to go on the record to tell us all that stuff?
The use of anonymous sources can definitely be and has frequently been abused. But the fairly new idea that using anon sources is problematic in itself simply does not hold water. And again, these 'yous' and rhetorical questions are not meant to you directly, I'm addressing people's questions more generally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
liberal historian
October 25, 2009 12:25 AM in reply to Josh Marshall
A very needed and timely reply indeed.
And what I like best about it is this:
Putting your integrity on the line, and reinforcing the implication that these stories have to flow through your desk, adds the necessary moral weight lacking in most new media enterprises.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 25, 2009 9:07 AM in reply to Josh Marshall
Josh, I deeply appreciate your active follow-up here. It's very helpful.
Having been a live, conscious, active voting citizen during the entire period of the Watergate affair, I certainly have no personal problem with anonymous source tipsters. For certain. That bit of history would likely have moved forward without those sources, but the level of revelations and subsequent actions based on those revelations would have been seriously crippled without sourcing protection for the various Nixon staff whistle-blowers.
The only caution I personally feel, on the other hand, comes from the fact I'm an old fart who appreciates how much more toxic and nefarious are the dynamics of political gamesmanship today compared to those earlier times.
My personal feelings of unease about these sources arises from the fact that there are so many executive branch employees today who have no loyalty to more liberal ideologies beyond their official paychecks.
I trust you and your staff's professionalism; I assume you check and cross-check these sources that come forward to assure TPM is not getting gamed — while I also fully appreciate how easily that might happen, what with Obama's almost irrational insistence on putting the "Team of Rivals" approach used by Lincoln into practice.
Is it possible to provide wider source context, without revealing these sources through citing too many extra details, to give your readers greater assurance these sources aren't running their own political end-game of actually weakening their current employer's public positions or public image?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 25, 2009 10:38 AM in reply to Josh Marshall
My initial two posts weren't really so focussed on anonymity but more on TPM 'becoming the news'. TPM (and others) quoted unnamed(this time) sources, causing PCCC to create an ad and send out a solicitation for signatures that further linked to a solicitation for $$$, TPM THEN reports on this and their role in the cause and effect.
Theoretically, TPM could accomplish this journalistic two-step anytime it wished. Of course, credibility would erode.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 25, 2009 11:24 AM in reply to trblmkr
TPM reports the facts. A group responds to the facts and says explicitly that they are relying on the TPM reportage. TPM then factually reports what the group did including the reliance on TPM. (Including live links was against policy and was dropped.)
What part of this is troublesome? All of it is truth.
What is problematic is when FOX pushes Tea Bagging and includes no information about its own role.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 25, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to AJM
The troublesome part is 1) the links were live for quite some time(I was the first reader to sign the petition then write a comment) and 2) Mr. Beutler, the reporter's personal membership in PCCC.
Furthermore, since it's impossible to check who these original sources were, TPM, by being the ONLY news org. that took it a step further than the original story("look what we caused") leaves itself open to suspicion, however wrong, that it made up the whole 'pushback' story in the first place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 25, 2009 2:45 PM in reply to trblmkr
Not arguing with you about links. Don't share your position that TPM should have buried what they know because some people would claim they made it up. I'm more concerned that TPM be virtuous than that they appear virtuous.
I'm agnostic as to political memberships by reporters: so many are de facto adherents to one side or the other that restricting group activities is more or less a charade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 25, 2009 5:37 PM in reply to AJM
You're the splitting the issue here. The problem isn't anonymous sources, of course they shouldn't 'sit' on relavent info. Also, I have no huge problem with a reporter belonging to a political organization though I would prefer he/she didn't. But, when the two are IN COMBINATION and a reporter's actions further that group's efforts, whether it be advocacy or fund raising, I have a problem with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 26, 2009 11:53 AM in reply to Josh Marshall
From my vantage point, the objection is less to the practice of using anonymous sources in principle, but in the way they've been used to drive quick-fix controversies without informing readers much about the debate. My experience with the health care coverage, and not just on this site, has been exhausting with repeated cycles of parsing statements from elected officials and sometimes miscontruing statements about the public option, which then leads to predictable series of outrage and clarification. Lately, we've been hearing more from anonymous officials, but the effect has been similar, with a few angry snipes at bloggers in pajamas thrown in for good measure.
Seems the method of reporting has been less helpful to understanding the complicated nature of the legislative process and more useful for ginning outrage. That's not to say the reporting isn't accurate, but perhaps incomplete and designed to generate more red sirens on the headlines. That is all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 26, 2009 1:09 PM in reply to Josh Marshall
Thanks, and as always I appreciate your feedback. This is a unique place, and I expect you know we keep coming back for a reason.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 25, 2009 10:24 AM in reply to Josh Marshall
Now THAT makes sense. A gentle Bronx cheer to all my detractors. Re: Mr. Beutler's membership in PCCC. I'm sure he is only a member in order to receive their communication and NOT a contributor but I think there should be a more 'institutional' way for TPM to accomplish that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
October 26, 2009 12:48 AM in reply to Josh Marshall
My post wasn't actually supposed to be a response to you, I apologize.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uneasyone
October 25, 2009 6:54 PM in reply to trblmkr
I have no problem with that at all. Everything you link to has something or other going on. Since the source for the item is what was linked, I don't see how they could have not provided the link.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
October 24, 2009 2:13 PM
I signed it. Here is what I wrote:
Hello, it's me again, and I am writing yet again to let you know that as a nurse, a mother, and a cancer survivor, only a strong Public Option is the beginning of the cure for what ails our health care here in the US. Please ignore Rahm Emmanuel because he is wrong! Please forget about getting ONE republican vote; it is not worth it to have a bad bill for that. Please do what you need to do to get every Democrat to vote for what we need. Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
October 24, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to CVille Dem
That is so powerful, its time to hold Obamas toes to the fire if he wants us to have his back. Forget about Snowe the GOP, its time to get what is Right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 25, 2009 9:29 AM in reply to CVille Dem
Well done. One point that somebody else mentioned somewhere is that this irrational quest for the holy grail of bipartisanship is already a done deal anyway: These bills and the public option, already have the support of Bernie Sanders, a member of an alternative party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 24, 2009 2:19 PM
Indeed, PCCC is citing TPMs reporting as the main impetus for the creation of the ad. The potential problem here is that since TPMs article on WH 'pushback' doesn't seem to name any sources except in the updated WH denial. Potentially, detractors could claim that TPM might create reportage out of whole cloth in order to spur contributions to one group or another in which TPM or its staff may or may not have an interest.
Not trying to be a wet blanket but as a fan of TPM would hate to see a problem arise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 24, 2009 4:42 PM in reply to trblmkr
Huh, then why did MoveOn and other groups write a letter to Rahm Emanuel asking him to support(!) a public option? Why did both Politico and CNN report that Obama indeed pushed for the "trigger" sell-out?
It seems either TPM has an incredible influence to convince so many people that the administration is dishonest, or...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 24, 2009 4:47 PM in reply to Why oh why
Moveon=501(c) political advocacy group. CNN,Politico=news orgs.
TPM=which one?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 24, 2009 4:58 PM in reply to trblmkr
To put it another way, would you feel better had the ad mentioned the Politico story instead of TPM? Would it really make a difference to the point?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 24, 2009 5:30 PM in reply to Why oh why
Only slightly. Are you trying NOT to understand? Can't you see the conflict if, indeed, TPM considers itself a news org.?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 25, 2009 11:29 AM in reply to trblmkr
What would you have TPM do -- only report news if the wrong-doers confess publicly? Just imagine how long we would have had to wait for Nixon.
Also,Obama needs to be careful in his denials or he will get a reputation for making things up out of the whole cloth.
They've been floating things for months now that looked remarkably like trial balloons to see if they could get away with ditching public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 25, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to AJM
Who are the 'wrongdoers' in this?
I don't really follow the Watergate analogy. Woodward and Bernstein's reporting might have spurred many sorts of actions on the part of anti-Nixon/Democratic orgs, including fundraising activities but you can be damned sure W and B would have NEVER written an article saying, in essence'"look what our reporting spurred."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 25, 2009 9:38 PM in reply to trblmkr
I think I was confusing you with someone who did object to the anonymous sources. After I wrote the post I thought that using wrongdoers was wrong because I wanted to extend the term to anyone who did not want to make their actions public.
TPM has been tracking, rather carefully, actions taken by progressives to get a public option and to get Obama to do what we want. Once PCCC did take such an action and cited a set of facts as reported by TPM as the reason for taking the action, what would you have TPM do?
I think they had to report PCCC's action and they had to report the reason PCCC gave.
Your concern is that TPM has been too instrumental in stirring the pot. I'd be more concerned if TPM had editorialized that PCCC should run such an ad, deliberately left the links up and then reported PCCC's actions as though it had no relation to TPM's actions.
Since TPM's actions were okay and they reported the connection I have no problem with this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 26, 2009 2:57 PM in reply to AJM
"I think they had to report PCCC's action and they had to report the reason PCCC gave."
I'm not so sure, I think if TPM had taken a deep breath and counted to 10 some other news org would have picked up the story by Mon. evening.
That would have been far less of a feedback loop situation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
October 24, 2009 3:11 PM
I signed the petition and donated.
I see no ethical problem with TPM's relationship with this ad or the organization. TPM reported that Obama was pushing back on the public optino. But Ezra Klein also reported the same thing, adding that Obama told Reid "I hope you guys know what you are doing" by pushing ahead with the public option rather than the trigger. Obama has lost a lot of credibility with progressives over health care, going back to his unwillingness to assert that the public option was essential back in July, to having (or letting) Rahm Emmanuel try to brow beat progressives in the House into taking the public option out. And why? All because he said that health care reform must be bipartisan. In my opinion, the PCCC deserves big kudos for having the guts to go after Obama and his triangulation techniques.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 24, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to El Puerco
C'mon...while I wouldn't be terribly surprised if White House is focused more on bipartisanship than a PO, this is irresponsible reporting.
As I said my concern is Reid and the blue dogs in the Senate now how are being given a new lease of life and much more space to undermine the PO. Because now they know, the "blame" will me mostly on the White House if a weak PO or no PO is in the Bill.
Despite WH intentions, I would like to see the Progressive strangle Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
October 24, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to kash79
WHY?
if obama is the problem now (and i say he always was)then its time to focus on him.
and again i ask simply,if obama makes it clear it will be his bill why is he not out front pushing a good bill???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 24, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to JadeZ
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/24/796656/-So,-Whats-Really-Going-On
You should read this...he explains much better than I do...one thing more important in the Senate bill is the bill that can pass..if Reid miscalculates the votes on the bill and filibuster HCR is DEAD.
I would like the pressure be on the Senate.
At this point in the process, taking on the White House is a distraction. I would like to see this ad during the conference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 25, 2009 9:43 AM in reply to kash79
I believe we can be effective serial taskers, and should apply our collective pressure everywhere, all the time, until some form of true reform ends up on the president's desk for signing. I know I am fully capable of signing petitions directed at all influential actors in this evolving reality show. Rather than letting somebody off the hook, I feel this approach ensures as many responsible persons as possible get hung there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 24, 2009 4:39 PM in reply to El Puerco
I don't think Ezra Klein then turned around and made himself the news by saying "hey, look at the impact my article has had, it's caused this group called the PCCC to make an ad espousing a particular point of view. Here's the letter they sent me and other members of their group that includes four links to join their effort and maybe contribute to their/my group"
Is TPM a news org. or firedoglake?
You're missing the point. I'm not even considering whether or not PCCC
is right or wrong or the merits of their stance. read my two above posts a little more carefully please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rightoverhere
October 24, 2009 3:24 PM
Obama was voted in partially thanks to his platform which claimed a new "bi-partisan" attitude in Washington. He's just trying to come through on his promises!... sadly he is doing just as poorly in that regard as he is in everything else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
October 24, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to rightoverhere
Well, when he's up against the party of "NO" it becomes an impossible task. That isn't his fault; the republicans want to see the country go even further downhill and then blame it on him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
October 24, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Well, he's also leading the party of Not So Much and Maybe Not Now. The blame belongs with both parties. Neither has been delivering for the average American for about 30 years. Pretending to deliver, talking but not delivering isn't good enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
October 24, 2009 4:30 PM in reply to bluebell
I can't argue with you about that. But when an entire side of the isle votes en masse, over and over again, it indicates a decision to do so regardless of the issue; and regardless of what is right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 24, 2009 3:33 PM
Nate Silver had an interesting post about the notion that the White House is willing to compromise just to get Olympia Snowe's vote...
He makes a good point that too many progressives are overlooking: The WH needs to get to 60 votes, and there are conservative Democrats who are more inclined to support a position closer to Snowe's than, say, Rockefeller's.
Ultimately, it seems that people are obsessing about the potential for compromise for "one Republican vote," without noting that a compromise is probably being entertained simply to bring about 2-5+ Democrats on board to prevent a filibuster. In other words, the prospect of a compromise is more likely because conservative Democrats are not unequivocally committed to voting for cloture; there is currently no sure path to 60 votes.
So, if people are concerned about the potential for compromise, the heat should be turned up on these Democrats that are holding out and/or lean toward a conservative compromise -- Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh, Lincoln, Lieberman, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 24, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Spot on. I think many progressives are underestimating the risk of HCR dying in the Senate, and in that case everything else is a moot point.
Even when the abc story broke, abou how the Senate was so close to a consensus on PO opt-out, it didn't add up for me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Schacht
October 24, 2009 7:22 PM in reply to kash79
We should of course maintain pressure on the Senate, but you seem to be overlooking the meaning of these most recent developments (if they are indeed real developments and not merely rumors). The point is that it looks as if Reid is close to having 60 votes in the senate WITH a public option. Now if it turns out the White House is pushing back, that would mean they are obstructing Reid's very possibly successful effort to get a filibuster proof majority in line for a bill that will include a public option. That's why people want to put pressure on the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WNCBlue
October 26, 2009 12:18 AM in reply to kash79
Your theory is that if Reid puts a bill with a PO on the floor, it will die because Democrats will filibuster it.
The alternative theory is that if Reid puts a bill with a PO on the floor, no member of the caucus (including Lieberman) is willing to be the one who "kills" health care reform.
I don't think progressives are underestimating the risk involved in acting on the alternative theory. Rather, they feel that the White House is underestimating the risk involved in passing a bill without a public option.
They're also opposed on principle to allowing 2-5 Democratic senators to kill the public option without their constituents knowing that they did so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trittydi
October 24, 2009 3:41 PM
Very glad to see this. I would like to see a lot more criticism of the president on this issue.
*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
timba
October 24, 2009 3:49 PM
I had just come here to ad a link to this video - great to see it already up - I donated $50 - this guy speaks directly to my heart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
October 24, 2009 4:39 PM
Obama has been a major disappointment to me. It seems a day doesn't go by without him pissing me off one way or another.
His adopting some of Bush's war on terror policies, his dilly dallying with Dont Ask Don't Tell, his not wanting to investigate some of the more egregious Bush/Cheney activities,
his seeming support for pre emptive incarceration, what looks to be an expansion of the war in Afghanistan, and there's something about his handling of the Wall Street meltdown, he seems to feel his speeches will cause the Banking cretins to develop a conscience. His support for the Public Option seems tepid to me.
Obama talks a good game, but at this point he seems feckless.
I'm going to look for fine print in anything he signs.
Harry Reid is an ass, his poll numbers are in the tank so he's become friendly with the popular Public Option.
Two weak leaders, Obama and Reid. The only Democratic leader with balls don't have balls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
October 24, 2009 5:04 PM
A different kind of trigger
by Jed Lewison, Daily Kos, Sat Oct 24, 2009
"Last night on Countdown, James Clyburn said the House was considering a public option trigger, but before you jump out of your chair, the trigger Clyburn was talking about is a trigger with a twist -- and it might actually be a good thing.
Unlike the Snowe Trigger, which would trigger the public option itself, Clyburn's trigger (he called it a "hybrid trigger") was a trigger to go from a public option with negotiated rates to a public option with Medicare + 5. With a hybrid trigger, you'd have a public option from day one -- the thing that would be triggered would be its reimbursement mechanism.
Clyburn said that there are four forms of the public option being considered in the House. Two of them have a form of the hybrid trigger, listed above. Clyburn said that the White House "seemed" to support that hybrid trigger. If Clyburn is correct, that would mean the White House wasn't supporting the Snowe Trigger, but rather the hybrid trigger, which is far more palatable, because we'd have a public option from day one. Obviously, it would be a huge coup if the Senate passed anything with Medicare + 5 in it. Also, apparently, the House is not putting an opt-out on the table, at least not now."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 24, 2009 5:35 PM in reply to RhodaA
Link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/24/796681/-A-different-kind-of-trigger
And, a link about the "What's Really Going On
Sneer away about 3D Chess all you want. This is the kind of strategizing that every halfway competent president (which, admittedly, is a concept we're still getting used to again) does when huge pieces of legislation is in Congress.
The problem with hair trigger "Internet
Time" responses to reports from only one source (i.e. Brian, not the "multiple sources" he cited in his post) is that you risk acting on incomplete information or, worse, getting played by people with an agenda that's different from yours. And leaks like the ones Brian reported on are part of the game for people in Congress.
The important thing in understanding news on a fast-moving story is to get your little heads past the notion that what's reported is reality and what's leaked is absolute truth. It's not. What's reported is a funhouse mirror version of the reality and the leakers aren't people whose main interest is the public's holy right to know. Instead, they're people trying to shape public opinion in a way that serves their own ends and they'll tell however much or however little of the truth as they know it as they think necessary to accomplish that end. And they're ends can be anything from making themselves feel important to advancing their bosses' goals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
socialnature
October 24, 2009 5:47 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
There's nothing halfway competent about Pres. Obama's mismanagement of healthcare reform. He's got a mandate from the election, consistent polling in favor of the public option, and has steadfastly refused to advocate for the public option, itself a compromise position. Instead, the WH has made deals with BIgPharma (Billy Tauzin, there's a working class hero for you), taken single payer off of the table, and handed undue authority over the process to Baucus, the 3-million-insurance-industry-dollar-man. This isn't 3-dimensional chess, this is a sellout.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Schacht
October 24, 2009 7:38 PM in reply to socialnature
Right on. I'm all for long term strategy, but what do you (NC Steve) think the play is here? Are you suggesting that the leaks don't reflect real developments but are instead the product of somebody's effort to shape the discussion in some way? Is it an attempt to slow momentum on the public option, or is it an attempt to create a sense of urgency and increase public pressure on the White House and congress for the public option? Is this Obama's strategy or is it someone else's? And taking a broader perspective, has the WH's reluctance to push hard for a public option or push hard for much of anything concrete at all reflective of some deeper strategy? And if so, what yet-undreamt-of fruits does it promise to bear? All these questions make me extremely skeptical of attempts to chalk any and everything up to some strategy. It seems more important and ultimately more efficacious to seize opportunities to apply pressure than to marvel at the WH's strategic genius.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
socialnature
October 24, 2009 5:37 PM
I left this comment for President Obama when I signed the petition:
You were elected to bring about real change in healthcare and so far you have failed to boldly, clearly, and consistently advocate for a robust public option. You took single-payer off the table at the outset, leaving the public option as its very much compromised replacement. After watching trillions go to Wall Street, needless wars escalated, presidential powers expanded unconscionably, and no attempt to stimulate job growth through a new New Deal aimed at the nation's crumbling infrastructure and educational institutions, failure on health care would demonstrate beyond all doubt that Democrats are not serious about governing in the interests of working women and men or their children. We're ready for real change now.
-------
I've called Sen. Bayh, my local Blue Dog, Joe Donnelly, and the WH repeatedly on this issue. I don't have much real hope that actual change will be brought about by the Democrats, since they're fractured within and not led with the determination necessary to keep wavering members in line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 24, 2009 5:48 PM
By the way, does anyone around here even care that the White House has now denied Brian's story on the record?
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/10/white_house_denies_report_that_it_wants_to_weaken_public_plan.php#
One wonders if TPM could have gotten this themselves had they simply asked before clicking "submit" on Brian's story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 24, 2009 6:08 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Except that Ezra Klein supports TPM's reporting.
And you quoted this from The Atlantic:
"The report is false. The White House continues to work with the Senate on the merging of the two bills," said Dan Pfeiffer, a top White House aide whose portfolio includes health care. "We are making good progress toward enacting comprehensive health reform."
"Good progress toward enacting comprehensive health reform"?
Why can't Dan Pfieffer, Top WH aide, not say those two little words?
Public Option.
Is it the same reason President Obama can't?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
October 24, 2009 6:05 PM
Check this out:
http://www.dailykos.com/
These are the people to call this weekend:
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8): 202-225-2542, 520-459-3115, 520-881-3588
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18): 202-225-6131; 209-383-4455, 209-527-1914
Joe Donnelly (IN-2): 202-225-3915, 574-288-2780
Kurt Schraeder (OR-05): 202-225-5711, 503-588-9100
Lincoln Davis (TN-04): 202-225-6831, 931-490-8699, 931-473-7251
Glenn Nye (VA-2): 202-225-4215 757-326-6201
Jim Costa (CA-20): 202-225-3341, 661-869-1620, 559-495-1620
Rick Boucher (VA-9): 202-225-3861, 276-628-1145
The House needs to pass the strongest bill possible going into negotiations with the Senate. All of the things that House members have fought to have included in this bill, not just the public option, will be best preserved with the strongest possible bill being passed by the House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
October 24, 2009 8:42 PM
secondly, doesnt it defy logic that Pres Obama would be AGAINST the public option?
i mean they have been out there over and over saying he wants a public option, he's pushing for a public option.
then some anonymous sources say, no actually he doesnt want it.
how does that make any sense?? at all??
and the argument that he would prefer bipartisanship in the form of a single republican vote out of 40 over a public option is only a little ridiculous.
i'm sick and tired of all this frothing at the mouth.
by all means, keep the pressure on everyone, the white house included.
but saying Pres Obama secretly doesnt want the public option without explaining why, or saying he wants Snowes vote by all means over the public option (again, why??) and that he sent Rahm the corporatist to kill the public option (whatever for??) is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE and silly.
Its just silly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Josh Marshall
October 24, 2009 10:24 PM in reply to elle a
count this as informed speculation. but the 'why' doesn't necessarily seem that obscure to me. consider this possibility: maybe the people at the White House think Reid et al. will go for the public option but then the whole thing will crash and burn on the senate floor. or maybe they think they can get the public option at the reconciliation stage but not now. but of those would explain why the white house is pushing back against reid's effort to get a real public option in the bill now. Again, let me be crystal clear. This is speculation. Call it a plausible hypothetical. For our reporting on the subject, see our posts at TPMDC. I make this point only to show that there are rational and fairly straightforward explanations for why Obama could be in favor of a public option as a general matter and yet be against it at this stage of the legislative process in the senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdh
October 25, 2009 3:33 AM in reply to Josh Marshall
I would add (my own bit of speculation) that, after House and Senate bills have passed, an eventual conference report will need to be approved by both chambers. In other words, the WH may be thinking not only of the immediate Senate vote, but also that which would come later assuming a compromise coming out of conference. The closer the Senate bill is to the House bill in terms of robustness of public option (among other considerations), the less latitude exists in conference committee within which to craft a report likely to pass a final vote in the Senate. This is exactly--exactly--the kind of calculation we should wish for from the WH. If Reid still thinks he has the votes to pass a more robust public option when that final Senate vote comes, then the conference report may have the freedom to tend more toward the House bill. But if you push the Senate to its limits in the vote on the Senate bill, then you give some senators license to vote "no" on a conference report that moves too far away from that initial bill, especially if some may feel their "yes" vote on the Senate bill gives them some measure of cover.
In other words, it's not yet the time for the WH to attempt to define the range of debate too narrowly, or to pretend it can know precisely what mix of qualities the conference report will need to comprise in order to be the best bill that can also pass. Or to be content to see the House and Senate, taken together, effectively do the same.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 25, 2009 11:39 AM in reply to bdh
They need to take into account the fact that they will not be able to pass a bill through the House that does not have public option. I don't think those Reps are bluffing and I applaud them. A bad bill is far worse than no bill at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 25, 2009 6:17 AM in reply to Josh Marshall
I agree that the "why" is not that obscure. But not for the reasons you suggest.
Reid was getting blasted by progressives on the PO issue. And is up for re-election next year. In fact, it was getting SO bad, Reid was the one beginning to be set up as the fall guy, should a PO NOT make it into the Senate legislation.
So BO stepped in, and is attempting to take all that on himself.
To protect Reid specifically, and the Senate in general, and make it seem that HE is the one that killed the PO, if it does not make it into the final bill.
With this kind of cover, it makes Reid seem that HE is the one that always wanted the PO and is providing effective progressive leadership on the issue (remember? HE is the one getting killed back home in Nevada on the leadership issue).
Now everyone can just beat up BO like HE is the problem. And the legislative process can continue without Reid and other Senators being immolated. Or much less so than it would have been otherwise.
I commend BO for his sacrifice. Or whatever.
But the outrage at him is misplaced. The problem is STILL a handful of conserva-dems in the Senate conducting silent filibusters on the PO.
Targeting THEM is STILL our first priority.
We ALL know BO is going to sign anything that even remotely smells like HCR at this point.
And we ALL know Pelosi will try to pass the most progressive bill she can.
Its the SENATE. Forget BO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
October 26, 2009 9:53 AM in reply to Josh Marshall
This would be more palatable if Obama somehow signaled a firm commitment to the PO. People like me would be more inclined to trust him on the chess moves if we were convinced we had the same end game in mind. Obama has burned some political capital with Progressives on other issues and that is weighing on his freedom to operate on HCR. OTOH, if in the end HCR passes with a robust public option, happy times will be here again!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 26, 2009 2:05 PM in reply to Josh Marshall
Cool beans, Josh, thanks for this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
October 25, 2009 10:06 PM in reply to elle a
two words explain why......
WALL STREET,
that's where his loyalties lie, look at his advisers, or should I say Wall street insiders. They're free market capitalists who have no interest in public options or anything that smells of government run healthcare.
He and Baucus rigged the finance committee to a 3 on 3 with our three being moderate conservadems to get one bill he could use against the others. If that committee were as it should've been it would've been out of comittee before August and with a real public option, possibly with a Rep vote or two but we gave away all the power for Wall Street.
The pres thinks he's smarter than all of us, and I think he's right based on folks defending him to the end. It/He's a con.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lou
October 24, 2009 9:30 PM
Instead of moveon should have MOVE OVER
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
October 24, 2009 9:41 PM
I've been bothered for much of this debate at people targeting Obama on the public option when, as I have perceived things, he actually was doing everything he could to support the public option, and it wasn't his decision what goes in the final bill anyway. It seemed to me like this attention was misdirected.
However: we are reaching a point in the debate now where things are very different. Now that the bill is out of the Finance committee, the White House actually is an active player in the negotiations on what happens next. Unlike before the White House is now in a position to provide direct input into bill content. And the White House is now taking a proactive stance on the question of Trigger vs Full Public Option in a way they have not previously-- I have some question as to whether TPM's anonymously sourced story from Friday is presenting a full and accurate view of the situation, but from the totality of available information the White House at a minimum is not actively advocating for the public option in the combined Senate bill in the way they could. There is an opportunity to win the battle on the public option now, and charitably the White House appears to be emphasizing caution rather than seizing it. They have the leverage right now to do better than this.
I think PCCC has had a good eye for when and how is the correct way to step in to a debate like this. Their direct targeting of Harry Reid appears to have lead to noticeably improved behavior on Reid's part. And I think they're going about this Obama-targeting advertisement the right way. And hey-- if Obama is on our side here, then a show of support for bypassing Snowe will only help, by giving him cover to do the right thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
October 25, 2009 11:00 AM in reply to mcc
Obama isn't on the side of Americans who need healthcare. He wants the trigger and anything else that pushes any care or the cold hard truth about how little any of this is about care far enough into the future that it doesn't impact his reelection.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PoorMansLobbyist.org
October 25, 2009 2:45 AM
I am relieved to see that others are as upset as I am with the White House's approach to the public option the past few days. They are really upsetting their base. I have written an Open Letter to the President at blog.poormanslobbyist.org.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 3:10 AM
the Washington Post story, about the House and Senate wanting to pass similar versions of the public option, so conference committee can focus on other issues,
shows us the "atmosphere" change Pelosi mentioned.
I wondered who decided that? I wonder what will come of it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 3:15 AM in reply to Indie Pro
depending on what they choose to include in both bills, it seems it would be wise to settle this issue now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
storm
October 25, 2009 4:39 AM in reply to Indie Pro
maybe, as no other issue has gotten any attention at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 25, 2009 4:42 AM
Good Ad. For about 10 seconds. I would have preferred the entire 60 seconds were taken beating the shit out of both Collins AND Snowe; instead of leaving people with the impression BO can "tell" Snowe a damn thing; which he can't.
If BO had a vote on the Senate floor, I'd say great; go with it. But he doesn't. And he can't "tell" Snowe, or any Senator for that matter, to do anything.
We should be focusing all our resources on beating up Senators that are obviously out of touch with their own constituents and the American People on HCR in general, and the PO specifically.
THAT is where we will see the most bang for our buck. Just IMO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 25, 2009 4:57 AM
Well, its working. Now we get THIS from the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html
So now a measure of heat will be taken OFF Reid and the Senate, and put ON the White House. Exactly where it DOES NOT belong. But where BO wants it. To protect and take heat off Reid and the Senate vis a vis progressive pressure.
Since when did Harry Reid become the paragon of progressive virtue, and BO the hater of it?
Progressives are eating up this bullshit and begging for more.
Like biscuits and gravy, baby.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
October 25, 2009 9:14 AM
Maybe the problem some Dems are having with the public option is not how to pass a public option that has weight, but how to pass what is supposedly a public option that cannot almost immediately be shown to be a sham.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
October 25, 2009 10:30 AM
Playing the game of politics, conventional wisdom dictates - the one upsetting both the left and right of the spectrum, must be doing something correctly.
however, when you look at the nature of what's sought after and potentially lost - I believe the 47mill (I think that's the latest tab of uninsured) have a bit more to lose should they not get the health insurance the rest of us seem to take for granted. I mean - I don't think not being able to purchase that extra yacht, or that condo on the beach, or even be able to afford to have the fat sucked from your thighs is gonna kill anybody (although having the fat sucked out might contribute, if you get an infection, but that's another issue- maybe?)
but going without insurance in no way contributes to the health, wholeness and happiness (happyness?) of the american population and if it's not contributing to life, it's taking away from life and that my friends leads to death.
let's, yes insurance IS access to healthcare. The numbers of people who 'dine and dash' at emergency rooms across the nation is staggering, true, but is far outweighed by those who simply go with their ailments untreated because (well, this is america - if we can't pay for something, we should go without, right?) Well, too many go without adequate healtcare.
Just a side question about why the big corporate high-up mucky-mucks would be against such a proposal for universal coverage. (I understand the medical/pharmaceutical angle - don't agree with it ethically, but understand) But the corporate employers? what's their schtick?
It would seem that having a happy, healthy, satisfied workforce would be in their best interest - afterall folks who are healthy, feeling good work more productively, yes? why would that not be an across the boardrooms push and a bonus for their advocating a Public Option? Unless of course there is something that they fear? something they might stand to lose? More than dollars (because let's face it - universal healthcare would cost them much less in dollars than paying out health benefits)
But what they may fear they stand to lose is control - control over their employees - fear that if they no longer have their employees chained to their work stations by their health insurance - that they might actually have to treat their employees humanely - or else risk losing them to other ventures or to other employers who will treat them with the dignity and respect that our workforce deserves.
To pres. Obama - let's push to lay the foundations so we can best enable the American populace (not corporations) to fully live into the ideals of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 25, 2009 12:21 PM
Pressure can't hurt, but no reason to give Harry Reid or the Senate a free pass. We know very well that some of the Senate "moderates" would be very happy to see this issue go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ramsgate
October 25, 2009 8:56 PM
Good ad but IMHO it would have been more effective if it were cast with a senior.
I'm not sure the Obama white house takes people younger than they are seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?