TPMDC
Public Option Pressure: As Stories Leak WH And Dem Leaders Say No Decision Has Been Made
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
House leadership sources are telling TPMDC they think news on the "robust" public option is leaking out to pressure House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the health care discussions are getting hotter, and closer to the final deal.
Politico's story this morning suggests Pelosi doesn't have the votes, but our sources insist the leadership isn't yet at that stage.
Presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett jabbed at the Politico story while appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe today, saying of the reporter who penned the piece, "I don't know whether Mike Allen can actually count votes or not."
But House sources think Democrats may have spoken with Allen to apply pressure on Pelosi at this late stage in the game.
Sources also knocked down a suggestion that President Obama expressed his preference for a type of public option during a huddle with Senate Democratic leaders last night at the White House.
An administration source tells TPMDC that last night Senate leaders updated Obama on their progress toward the final merger. The group discussed a public option that includes a state opt-out clause, but stressed they had not made a final decision.
Senators are "still working through the substance and talking to their members about it," the source said. "They didn't ask for the president's endorsement since no decision has been made."
"No decision has been made," two other sources said this morning.
The House leadership continues to keep its eye on the prize of 218 votes, and believes that any of the public option plans being considered will result in a strong bill.
House Democrats are holding a caucus meeting at 9:30 a.m. and TPMDC will keep you posted.
The Democratic whip's office has been surveying members on the public option for the last several days to get a sense of where they stand on different elements of the bill, a strategy that will inform the final version of what the House introduces.
Jarrett, one of Obama's closest advisers, said it was "too soon to tell" if the White House would get the public option it prefers.
"We're going to keep pushing until the very last moment," Jarrett said.
Late update: Here's video of Jarrett.
Comments (51) | 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.
Why oh why
October 23, 2009 9:02 AM
From the Politico story:
"Obama told Democratic leadership at the White House Thursday evening that his preference is for the trigger championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)"
Is it true? Who knows. Why can't Obama just say what he supports, instead of sending smoke signals on a vague "public option", that he doesn't really define or deem necessary?
If there is a robust public option in the final bill, Pelosi will get the credit, not the corporate wing of the Democratic party in charge at the White House and Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 10:01 AM in reply to Why oh why
First, Politico is not a reliable source and I don't believe Obama said that for a minute. This is a hoax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 23, 2009 10:13 AM in reply to lousgirl84
I don't know if Obama really said that, but I sure believe "a top administration official" told Politico he did. The biggest opponents to any corporate unfriendly reform are in the White House, so what does that tell you about Obama?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
October 23, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to Why oh why
No one knows any of that for a fact. It's not over until the fat lady sings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcartri
October 23, 2009 12:00 PM in reply to Why oh why
Obama, Rahm & the Blue Dogs are corporate owned. We will be fighting this White House everyday to do what they promised in their campaign. Look no farther than Wall St. & Obama's economic team to see who this White House supports. Obama's MO: Progressive rhetoric, followed by corporate capitulation. The Republican Party of crazies are enabled by Obama & the Blue Dogs. We see it day after day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 12:14 PM in reply to mcartri
I know these corporate appointments are upsetting:
Obama has tapped Roger Beachy, long-time president of the Danforth Plant Science Center (Monsanto’s nonprofit arm) as chief of the USDA’s newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Created by the 2008 Farm Bill, NIFA is the new means of awarding the USDA’s external research dollars. As the director of NIFA (a nomination that doesn’t require congressional approval), Beachy will oversee the distribution of nearly $500 million in grants and other research funding. Sustainable agriculture initiatives are likely to suffer, as research dollars are awarded to projects that promote Beachy’s vested interests in biotechnology.
and
Islam Siddiqui, currently the VP of Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife USA, was nominated to the post of Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative’s office. Why the president would nominate someone from the group that infamously chided the First Lady for refusing to use pesticides on the White House garden is a bit of a mystery. This critical position is designed to use free trade agreements to open up foreign markets for U.S. agriculture goods — in the past, mostly to promote chemical-intensive, genetically modified products that undermine local food cultures in developing countries.
***
The Obama administration has made tremendous strides towards encouraging the growth of the local food movement, and its connections to human health and ecological impacts. The White House organic garden and the farmers market spearheaded by Michelle Obama are important symbolic gestures, as is the USDA’s new “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative.
However, these latest appointments of industry insiders to two of the most influential offices that will shape U.S. food and agricultural policy at home and abroad call into question just how committed the Obama administration is to promoting sustainable agriculture and reducing hunger in the developing world.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/21/obama-monsanto-picks/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 12:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro
oh, and allowing exploratory drilling in the artic circle is disturbing as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 10:56 AM in reply to Why oh why
if Obama would actually chime in and say which of the many Public Options he likes, people wouldn't be able to claim which one he likes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
October 23, 2009 11:13 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Wow, how quickly people forget what happened to healthcare reform in 1994. The white house failed then because they went too far in dictating to congress what the legislation should look like. President Obama is doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing. We have no idea what's going on behind the scenes and what he and his staff are communicating to the Dem leadership behind closed doors. I find it funny that there are so many armchair quarterbacks who have nothing to do but complain about things they know absolutely nothing about. Thanks to the 24 hr news cycle people are hovering on every word these people make not realizing how the sausage is actually made and what the legislative process looks like in reality. All I can say is Grab a Mop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 11:18 AM in reply to docrocktex
this is a nice and tired line. At this stage in the game there is no comparison to 94.
I'll stand by my statement. If Obama would actually state a prefernce, people couldn't put words in his mouth.
He could go ahead and qualify it with his standard wishy washy, but besides our conservative lines in the sand concerning the budget, we aren't drawing line on our preference for the PO, and we are open to alternatives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 23, 2009 11:29 AM in reply to docrocktex
You forgot to put "hope" and "change" somewhere in that rant.
By the way, the reason we have "no idea what's going on behind the scenes" is because Obama reneged on his promise to show all health care negociations on CSPAN. Instead, Rahm Emanuel is meeting with lobbyists in secret - probably asking them to help the little guy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
October 23, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to docrocktex
I for one, am an arm chair quaterback who is complaining I know nothing. This administration was supposed to be about openess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 11:58 AM in reply to mcrose68
in the parlance of most rappers from the late 1980's, "Word."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
October 23, 2009 9:06 AM
I suspect that there are these leaks from people who don't want the public option so they say that "anonymous Democratic source" says that Obama favors the trigger to Politico yet the NYT says that Obama took NO POSITION on this.
Also, Politico's exclusive that Nancy doesn't have the votes for the most robust public option but that doesn't mean she won't get them with much arm twisting.
Too many stupid leaks from anonymous sources.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dhs
October 23, 2009 9:09 AM
Obama seems to be dragging his feet, as usual. He seems to be doing everything he can to kill the public option. So he really has nothing to say about the bill. He will sign what he gets.
My take is that the so-called "leaks" are meant to stir up the progressives to hold Reid and Pelosi's feet to the fire. In any event, we should keep up the full court press. We are winning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
October 23, 2009 9:13 AM in reply to dhs
He's not trying to kill the public option. He's trying to hedge his bets, so that no matter whether there is a public option in the end or not, he can claim victory.
That's not how you lead. And it reinforces the notion that Obama only knows how to campaign and can't lead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthspeaker
October 23, 2009 9:20 AM in reply to jdb316
You're on the wrong site.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
October 23, 2009 9:54 AM in reply to truthspeaker
What is that supposed to mean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
October 23, 2009 9:59 AM in reply to jdb316
Roosevelt, Obama is not.
He's channeled the wrong President. Lincoln really didn't care about the slaves. He was a corporate attorney for Rail Road Interests. History dragged him into the position of becoming the great emancipator.
Same with Obama.
Like Lincoln, he was temperamentally conservative, but cast his shadow onto the liberal side when he campaigned because that's the way the tide of his politics was running, but never really bought into and once elected, tried to forget the impression he made, saying the south could keep it's slaves. The southerners ignored the man in favor of the shadow, and succeeded from the union. The cause of the war forced Lincoln into emancipation. Every great struggle needs an ideological cause for the masses to fight for. Anti-slavery help recruit soldiers for the war.
Obama's the same way. He cast a liberal shadow. Most of the people are fixated on the shadow. Events will force him to become the great health insurance emancipator, but from his perspective, he could have taken it either way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
October 23, 2009 10:28 AM in reply to Tim
I would say he was a moderate who, like LBJ later on, moved ever more to the liberal side of things. However, there is no way in fairly normal situations (Civil War, Civil Rights and Depression NOT being normal)radicals get elected but extraordinary situations can bring about change in individuals. Perhaps the same thing will happen with O?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 10:02 AM in reply to jdb316
Are you lost? You should be over at Politico.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthspeaker
October 23, 2009 9:18 AM
I am peeved at TPM this morning. Why?. I clicked on the caption under today's lead story and was totally confused by the slant the story was taking. I decided to add my voice to the discussion and when I tried to do so, I realized that I was logged into 'Politico's website. I will ask TPM to clearly state in the future that this is from another website when featuring a story from another news source. If I wish to read what 'Politico' reports I will simply go to their site. Please be clear in the future. Thank you
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
October 23, 2009 1:35 PM in reply to truthspeaker
So you don't think that beginning the caption with "Politico: Pelosi lacks votes..." was enough? And once you got to the site, the "Politico" header at the top, list of Politico bloggers on the right, and otherwise totally different layout didn't clue you in until after you'd read the entire article?
Sorry, not much we can do for you...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
parodyandson
October 23, 2009 9:20 AM
HEALTHCARE REFORM: THE ART OF COMPROMISE MEETS THE MARTIAL ARTS
The battle moves onto the next level. See “Healthcare Fighting (Kung Fu Mix)” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nc1VwJOb9Y
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 23, 2009 9:22 AM
I was skeptical when I read it via Yahoo! News, as I am with anything that Politico "reports."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
garp
October 23, 2009 9:33 AM
Am I the only one who's sick of all these reports about the public option that reveal nothing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 10:04 AM in reply to garp
No you are not. All these websites, and unfortunately TPM, seem to be desperate to get us to read their articles so they are embellishing the stories. I love TPM but sometimes I wonder. If I want b/s I can go to Huffpo or Politico or the other worthless websites.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 9:35 AM
Paraphrasing Valerie Jarret on "Morning Joke" earlier today, "the President supports a Public Option and sees it as the best way to insure competition and control costs".
It's not like we have to read tea leaves to understand their position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ramsgate
October 23, 2009 9:49 AM
"NO decision has been made". That's the story of this administration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 10:33 AM in reply to Ramsgate
Would would you like Emperor Obama to decree?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 10:52 AM in reply to Dorn76
a preference for which PO he leans toward
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
October 23, 2009 11:15 AM in reply to Indie Pro
You clearly haven't been paying attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 11:20 AM in reply to docrocktex
what do you mean? Obama has declared which of the many PO he prefers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 10:08 AM
The Politico is the web equivalent of FoxNews.
Anyone remember their Summer 2008 predictions about a McCain "blowout"?
Typically a Politico story consists of *ONE* cowardly anonymous "source" who is presumably a GOP operative seeking to smear or spin. They type it up with all the "sources say" caveats, and voila -- Spin accomplished!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
October 23, 2009 10:35 AM
LMAO Politico literally bullshitted an entire story. I love it. This is definitely heating up. Of course most libs will have a kneejer reactions to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bmull
October 23, 2009 10:43 AM
CNN is backing Politico's story that Obama said he wants Snowe's trigger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loria
October 23, 2009 12:05 PM in reply to bmull
Isn't Polico part of CNN?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kip Sullivan
October 23, 2009 10:53 AM
Is TPM ever going to publish a story that asks what the Democrats' proposed "public option" is? Which asks whether and how all the promises made for the "option" will come true?
Does TPM know or care:
* whether the "option" will be a single, uniform program or multiple programs with different levels of benefits and different constraints on choice of provider and different premiums,
* whether the "option" or "options" will have below-average administrative costs and below-average provider reimbursement rates and, for those reasons, be able to break into all or most insurance markets in this country,
* whether the premiums of those "options" that do survive will be lower than those of the insurance companies they compete with,
* whether insurance companies will wind up starting and running some or all of the "options,"
* whether the "options" will "look like Medicare,"
* whether the "options" will suffer adverse selection badly enough to drive their premiums up above those of the insurance companies they compete with,
* whether the "options" will limit patient choice of doctor and play the other infuriating managed-care games played by the insurance industry?
Would it be too much to ask that once -- just once -- before the Democrats vote for an insurance industry bailout using the "option" as an excuse, TPM posts an article examining some, and preferably, all of these questions?
Kip Sullivan
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Posture
October 23, 2009 11:32 AM in reply to Kip Sullivan
God, I agree. I mean, if a robust public option ends up being something that covers 10% of the poorest of the poor starting in 2013, then what are we doing here? Out of the senate and house committee bills, I think that was the most generous public option that reported out, right? Don't get me wrong, in terms of a social safety net, that would be a nice thing to have, but when you read article after article about the fight over a public option, it would be nice to see the term defined according to what's been publicly put on the table. I get that debate is still underway, and who knows what will be in the final bill, but it was my understanding that covering 10% of the population in 4 years was the controversy, and if that is controversial, then this is all just theater meant to keep us mindlessly supporting legislation that mandates we pay anywhere from 30%-50% of our personal discretionary income to private insurance companies, with no public option unless we are absolutely destitute. What a great trick.
Please, tell me I have misunderstood. I mean it - please tell me this is incorrect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kip Sullivan
October 23, 2009 1:47 PM in reply to Posture
Posture, you are only slightly incorrect.
The much-debated "option" is about a public program that will enroll somewhere between zero and 10 million Americans. The 10% figure you cited is the percent of us who will be eligible to participate in the "exchange" (or "exchanges")and get subsidies to buy insurance there (I believe 10% is the Congressional Budget Office's estimate for both the House "reform" bill and the Senate health committee bill, but I'm doing this from memory). CBO is saying that 30 million of us will be eligible to shop in the exchange(s) and be subsidized, and of that 30 million, somewhere between zero and 10 million of us will choose the "option."
It's very difficult to imagine how a public program, as it is described in the Dems' bills, will attract customers away from established insurance companies. It is very difficult to imagine how the PO, with no more than 10 million people in it, could possibly break into insurance markets throughout America, markets which have been highly concentrated and very difficult to break into for the last several decades. I suppose if the 10 million enrollees all came from the same two or three states, that would give the PO sufficient clout to break into the markets in those states. But that would mean, of course, no PO in the other 47 or 48 states.
The enrollees in the PO, should there be any, won't be the poorest of the poor. The poor will be in Medicaid, which will probably be expanded by the "reform" bill. But they may well be disproportionately sick, because (1) many will have been previously uninsured, (2)eligibility for the exchange is defined partly by (low) income and (3) the insurance industry will engage in below-the-radar rationing that will drive sicker people into the arms of the PO (assuming the PO doesn't adopt similar managed care tactics, which no one knows for sure it won't).
Kip
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
October 23, 2009 10:57 AM
Politico Strikes again with the rampant bullshit. Makes sense they know more than Nancy Pelosi about the statte of her caucus
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jacklang0002
October 23, 2009 11:00 AM
====================== HTTP://www.ebuyings.com ================== ====================== HTTP://www.ebuyings.com ==================
the website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prama,****, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal our price:Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33UGG BOOT $50Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16New era cap $15Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JoeTheMechanic
October 23, 2009 11:46 AM
Remember August? The media was focused on the quantity of outrage at town hall meetings.
Now the media is fixated on will there or won't there be a public option. This is a much better debate to have and a lot more educational. I would suggest that by not demanding a specific HCR plan, Obama has helped to shift the debate. The numbers - congressional vote counts and opinion polls - keep getting better the longer this debate goes on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
October 23, 2009 12:07 PM
From the front page of foxnews.com, under the heading of "Breaking News" :
FOX FORUM: YOU Can Still Stop Obamacare
Gee. I wonder why Obama views their news and opinion as one in the same - a media outlet for the opposition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JoeTheMechanic
October 23, 2009 12:15 PM in reply to mcrose68
The irony is that Fox viewers will be among the first to scream "keep the government out of my public option!" if and when they ever get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
October 23, 2009 7:59 PM in reply to JoeTheMechanic
Oh, are you referring about the 50+ Members of Congress who are receiving those "Government Run" Medicare Payments?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
October 23, 2009 7:56 PM
So is Allen just pulling crap out of his ass as "facts" and reporting it or is he trying to kill the Public Option himself, without even having a vote on it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Don JD
October 23, 2009 10:04 PM
Just something you all might like to look at from OpenLeft.com :
White House to Reid: "We hope you guys know what you're doing." (Mark Matson)
Ezra Klein, talking to his own sources, tries to clear up the confusion... It continues:
"On Thursday night, Reid went over to the White House for a talk with the president. The conversation centered on Reid's desire to put Schumer's national opt-out plan into the base bill. White House officials were not necessarily pleased, and they made that known. Everyone agrees that they didn't embrace Reid's new strategy. Everyone agrees that the White House wants Snowe on the bill, feels the trigger offers a safer endgame, and isn't convinced by Reid's math. But whether officials expressed a clear preference for the trigger, or were just worried about the potential for 60 votes, is less clear. One staffer briefed on the conversation says "the White House basically told us, 'We hope you guys know what you're doing.'"
It is unfathonable that the President is still unable to forcefully back the public option for fear of alienating the support of one (1) lone Republican, while all the time having a caucus of sixty (60) Democratic Senators...
Either he is for the existing corporate structure (the status quo, via 'trigger') or not???
Either he will follow the wishes of the majority of voters who brought him here or not???
Will he throw the Progressives, Independents, and yes, even those Republicans who voted for him, under the bus for the single nod from Sen. Snowe???
What happens from here on is beyond my expertise, and quite frankly, I'm tired of playing a theoretical "guessing game" about where the President stands concerning the pending legislation, or whether he is "playing three dimensional chess", or whether he is a "hero" or not...
All I ask is that the President LEAD and use the bully-pulpit for the common good !!!
It is time to STOP this continued "FENCE-SITTING".
Please note:
In re the FINAL health insurance reform:
Will the Democrats produce a "GOOD" Bill???
a)does it cut costs, and is it
b)affordable...
If so, then the Democratic Party will enjoy years of majority rule --
However, if this Congress passes a weak, water-down bill that doesn't work; doesn't cut health-care costs for voters; and is not affordable, yet MANDATED, your Party will enjoy another thirty (30) years wandering in the political wilderness...
The political test is simple:
Can the Democratic Party really GOVERN, or are you so disfunctional and fractionalized that you are unable to accomplish anything truly meaningful???
As we say in Louisiana during Mardi Gras: "Show Me Something Mister"!!!...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
October 24, 2009 12:31 AM in reply to Don JD
I consider OpenLeft to be about as accurate as Fox. Pretty much everyone there has been suffering from Chicken Little Syndrome since Jan. 21st. A lot of them actually do act disappointed and angry that Obama didn't turn out to be the Messiah and completely overturn our political system in two months. They're the type of people who are convinced that most people would be progressives if they weren't blinded by misinformation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PoorMansLobbyist.org
October 24, 2009 12:03 AM
The press late this week on the public option "progress" has been very disturbing. It seems like 1 step forward, 2 steps backwards.
The cost of getting a "bipartisan" vote - even though it is unlikely to get a single Republican vote in the end - is way too high.
The compromise around the public option is creating such a weak solution, it is destined to fail before it ever gets off the ground.
The House seems to get it, and the major proponents of the Public Option all seem to be in the House. Meanwhile, the Senate and the White House seem more concerned with getting a checkbox that something was passed, no matter how bad it is.
I have many more thoughts on this in a blog post about the public option at blog.poormanslobbyist.org
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
October 24, 2009 11:22 AM
Reading the anti-Obama people here is a lollercaust - multiplied by 10 watching us get closer and closer to a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?