TPMDC
Top Aide: It's Time For The White House To Take Stand On Public Option
Brian Beutler | October 19, 2009, 4:36PM
Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!
Share
Send to a friend!
Last week, at a meeting between Senate health care principals and Obama administration officials, the White House basically told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid it would be leaving most of the big legislative decisions on reform to him. This week, Reid is faced with an onslaught from pressure groups, including labor and the grassroots, demanding that he include the public option in the health care bill he brings to the floor.
In a sign that Reid may be willing to acquiesce, if only the White House helps him whip the caucus into shape, a top Capitol Hill aide tells me "Right now, we don't have 60 Democratic Senators in lockstep with one another on the public option...we need the president to send a strong signal to those in the room negotiating the merger, that the public option is, really, what he wants in the final bill."
This weekend, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett reiterated the White House's non-committal stance on the public option. The aide's plea for more White House involvement suggests non-committal statements like Jarrett's are insufficient to save the day for public option in the Senate's bill.
In the past, Obama has told senators that he simply wants the House and Senate to pass their bills, leaving all the hard decisions to be sorted out in a conference committee between the two chambers. But the demand for the public option, from both party liberals and outside reformers, has only intensified in recent weeks, and more than ever it seems as if both White House and Senate officials have waken up to how much is at stake if the public option doesn't survive.
If Reid does not include a public option in the Senate's health care bill, the measure will face a stiff climb on the Senate floor, subject, by the agreement of all senators, to a 60 vote requirement. It's likely that if the public option doesn't come to the Senate floor now, there will be only one more chance to incorporate it in the bill the President signs--that is, when the House and Senate bills are weaved together in conference. That's, potentially, a very dangerous game. But there are also at least some signs that Reid is preparing for that contingency.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 4:46 PM
Harry Reid prior to 2006: We've got to get a majority.
Harry Reid prior to 2008: we've got to get a bigger majority.
Harry Reid, 2009: we don't really have 58, 59, 60 votes.
Harry Reid last winter: "I don't work for President Obama."
Ben Nelson, 2009: we need 65 votes for anything.
The DSCC, October 2009: Please contribute, so we can get an overwhelming number of Democrats in the Senate.
Harry Reid, today: I need the White House to do the job.
The Democratic leadership, with Harry Reid at the helm, constantly reminds us that they simply don't have the numbers to do anything, and constantly asks us for more money to get more numbers, even though they don't seem capable of doing much with the numbers they have.
Now they're creating an excuse if no public option is included, and if no health care gets passed: President Obama didn't do enough. Of course, had Obama been seemingly more involved, the excuse would have been: President Obama rode roughshod over us.
In other words, the Democrat leadership hasn't been doing a lot except explaining why, no matter what the margin in the SEnate, they can't do anything. And using the President as an excuse.
Tell me again why I should contribute money to the DSCC? So they can have a margin of 65, and Harry can tell me 65 isn't really 65?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SchrodingersCat
October 19, 2009 5:12 PM in reply to CT Voter
Seconded.
I used to cut ol' Harry some slack knowing that the numbers weren't really on his side. No more. He's got 60 and he's still whining. Enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 5:33 PM in reply to SchrodingersCat
I received a fundraising call from the DSCC Saturday morning. The person on the other end appeared to be pretty knowledgeable about Senate politics (unlike some of the individuals who make the fundraising calls), and he asked for more money so that they could get an "overwhelming majority" of Democrats.
The conversation didn't go well from there. My mentioning that the only way a Republican filibuster would work is for Democrats to support it pretty much closed it down, in fact.
2006: majority.
2008: bigger majority. 60 votes.
2009: we don't have 60 votes.
Future: we need an overwhelming majority. 75? 80?
Something isn't right here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
October 19, 2009 6:12 PM in reply to SchrodingersCat
Thirded.
When Harry Reid says he needs 60 votes for the public option, that's bullshit. What he needs -- and should have guaranteed long ago -- is 60 votes for cloture. Voting with the party on procedural votes ought to be an automatic precondition for caucus membership, chairmanships, etc. With that, all we need is 50 votes (plus Biden). We can get that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 19, 2009 5:12 PM in reply to CT Voter
I going to play the Devil's advocate here, and this is hypothetical so don't shoot me....
Is it possible that Obama, by putting the fate of the PO on Reid, is actually putting the fate of the PO where it belongs, in the hands of the people? Isn't it up to the electorate to keep up the pressure on elected officials to do the right thing? Without pressure from the Left we are only seeing the pressure exerted from the Right.
What I'm getting at here is Democrats need their winning coalition unified and vocal, not just in the run up to an election but in policy fights as well.
We know that politicians react only to the threat of losing their power. I think Obama is pointing out to us the direction where pressure needs to be applied. As if to say "I can only do so much, I makes no sense for Me to lose my credibility and popularity on something the folks at the other end of PA Ave. are doing. That does us no good in this fight or the next"
...and he would be right.
It's up to us to pressure congress, we elect them, we hold their jobs in Our Hands, the president doesn't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shevas01
October 19, 2009 5:25 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
You know the last few days I've been thinking the exact same thing. I hope I'm not rationalizing but I'm think the second the administration comes out hard in support of the public option then the people who support get complacent. As long as we think it may not happen but we are fighting hard to make it happen...we stay engaged. I hope this is the strategy. Angry folks stay engaged and not Pres. Obama capitulating.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to shevas01
awww. That's cute. You guys are all ready coming up with excuses for Obama. Neato.
all joking aside, I find this idea weird as hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 19, 2009 5:42 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Well, the solution to 8 years of Repukes ramming their agenda down America's throat is not 8 years of Dems ramming their agenda down America's throat no matter how much I agree with that agenda.
The administration is trying to find that fine line in the middle...
We all hated the way Bush did things when he was Pres. do we really want Obama to be like Bush (albeit w/ better ideas)
There is a Political Party that loves Hypocrites though, May I suggest Redstate.com to see it on display.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 5:45 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
newsflash: ramming does not equal fighting for or actively advocating
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
October 19, 2009 5:51 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Exactly. Presidential leadership on a vital national issue is NOT the same as wanting to be "the decider" for the whole country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 19, 2009 5:58 PM in reply to Indie Pro
An address to a Joint-session of congress isn't Advocacy?
Do you want him to engage in scare tactics like the GOOPers?
Given the successful campaign operation rum by Obama & Co., I would guess that they are better qualified to judge where and how much advocacy is best.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:00 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
yes, his joint session speech was all about the Public Option.
scare tactics do not equal active advocacy, and fighting for what is just
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
October 19, 2009 7:09 PM in reply to Indie Pro
of course it is weird and worse then that its ignorant.
Obama has said time after time that HE would own any bill that gets passed, yet we are supposed to believe its reid that will call the shots here.
of course obama will own it so to not make known his will is not believable.
this is what i have said all along and i have yet to be shown wrong,Obama does not and never did want a strong PO in any bill.
its obvious if he did it would be there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 20, 2009 1:04 AM in reply to JadeZ
I agree. I won't get into the reasons why which I have stated ad naseum on many other threads.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 20, 2009 10:03 AM in reply to JadeZ
it does seem the whitehouse wants to distance itself from what Reid produces.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
I couldn't agree more with your assessment. We objected, rightly, to Bush's approach to governance. Obama seems to be saying just what you said: I'm not king, people. You gotta do your part.
And he's trying to take that approach with DADT, which is angering many people who would prefer that Obama be more Bush-like.
My beef is with Harry Reid. Since 2006, he's had a whole series of excuses as to why the Freaking Democratic Majority in the Senate behaves like an abused spouse. These last 9 months have been particularly interesting. Watching Reid proclaim his independence from the White House, only to have senior Democratic aides (anonymous ones, and have I even mentioned how deeply grating the practice of anonymous Democratic aides spilling to reporters is at this point????) say "We need the White House to lead us....please please please!!!"
Oh, don't even get me started at this point.
/rant.
P.S. Again, I think you're spot on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 5:30 PM in reply to CT Voter
wow
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 5:35 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yeah, I imagined you probably wouldn't agree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 5:39 PM in reply to CT Voter
I just don't understand what this is based on besides "wanting to believe".
You have a bill moving through Congress mandating people, all people, buy insurance with no cost controls. Without anything that keeps the insurance industry from raising prices. Handing over the public, the community, to the wolves.
Subsidies all ready won't cover everyone that'll need them. Wages for average Americans have been stagnant for decades, and are falling in this economic climate, plus hours are being cut, while the top 1% rakes in the money. meh. Whatever. I still liek you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 19, 2009 5:50 PM in reply to Indie Pro
It was based on the system of goverment we live under. (and yes, Optimism. How's that pessimism working for ya?)
Obama can scream until he is Blue in the face at Reid but unless there is Pressure from the people who elect them, senators have only there morality as a reason for doing the right thing. Given there chosen career path we can't really rely on the morality part.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
with all due respect, I'm talking about you assuming what Obama is doing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 19, 2009 6:12 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I suppose Neither of us know exactly what is going on in the heads of these politicians. (I'll assume we agree on this point)
The long and the short of what I'm getting at is public pressure is what makes politicians act (I'll assume, again, we agree on this point)
Now, would you agree that political observers like ourselves are NOT the only ones who know this? Perhaps Politicians are aware? (I'll again assume agreement)
This gets to the point I'm getting at, Obama Is savvy enough to realize this. (I think we are still in agreeement so far)
Now, If you were in his shoes would you stake a second term on Reid following your advice, Publicly pushing him or Not?
With all that in Mind, would you push hard, knowing the harder you push the harder the push back is. Or would you try to get the public to push Reid, since he can't, as a politician, push back against his electorate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:16 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
Obama has given no advice.
He says he likes the PO, but he's not saying it needs to be in the final bill (as evidenced by his staff on this Sunday's talk shows).
What you got their is wishy washy. Can we agree on that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
October 19, 2009 8:39 PM in reply to Indie Pro
you say he has given no advice, then you go on to explain the advice he HAS given.
he said he would like a public option, and he has outlined what the bill should do.
it is not prez obama's duty to write legislation, thats the congress job.
neither can he be seen to dictate to the congress what they should do.
that isnt the way your government works
i understand that 8 years of bush has warped everybody's thinking, but still, people, lets be real here.
that said, i will be really suprised if there isnt a public option in the bill that gets sent to obama.
in fact, i am willing to bet anything there will be a public option.
in what form? i have no idea, there are alot of public option options (ha ha) but there will definitely be one.
and lets not lose sight of something very important, no matter what kind of public option is in that bill, from the day that bill is signed, pre-exsiting conditions will no longer exist.
that is a huge change. huge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 20, 2009 9:57 AM in reply to elle a
Saying you like something, but it doesn't have to be in there is not advice. It's wishy washy
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 20, 2009 1:12 AM in reply to Indie Pro
I can agree and have
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 5:51 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'm not going to dispute the facts. 'Cause, well, I actually do believe in reality.
I think where we differ is what you pointed out: you don't see much in the current state of "reform" that is actually "reform". I'm hoping (and yes, it is hope) that the final version will produce a public option and I think some sort of public option will open the door for a better version in the future. And I have no problem if you point out that this is pathological PollyAnnish thinking.
What johnny_5 and I both agreeing on was on the approach that Obama seems to be taking. On this, and on DADT and DOMA, and probably other issues that are getting less attention. I think one could reasonably argue that, given the state of health insurance in this country, a heavy-handed, get the troops in line no matter what approach is called for, but I would probably still disagree with that.
And my beef, again, is really with the Democratic "leadership" (sic) in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 5:58 PM in reply to CT Voter
I share the same hopes for a final bill.
For me, our difference is, I want to judge Obama on his actions. On his support. On what he fights for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 19, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to Indie Pro
And our point is, he may be doing just that.
Good luck to us all, it was fun to hash it out with you, perhaps both our viewpoints are a bit more refined.
Good night.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:31 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
but then again. maybe he isn't, was my point
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 20, 2009 1:16 AM in reply to Indie Pro
no he isn't in mho
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 19, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The problem is that it's more than judging the prez for what he fights for, but rather judging him for what news reports tell us he's fighting for. It's gets tiresome reading these news wires of some anonymous aide or some lawmaker making some comment that may or may not reflect the true trajectory of the negotiations.
We'll hear more complaints about Obama "letting" Congress write too much of the bill, and then we'll hear the hushed whispers of how the White House is getting exactly what they want out of the process.
We're guessing about a lot of this, but my sense is that the public option is in a stronger place in the Senate than it was a couple weeks ago. The remaining questions about whether it gets in the Senate bill, whether it survives conference, whether a compromised version gets in, the nature of the compromise, and so on, are still parts of a fluid process. Maybe a thousand anonymous aides can be quoted to describe this elephant, or maybe a few more lawmakers can be quoted out of context again to create drama, but I'm not putting a lot of stock in single news reports.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:33 PM in reply to fbacon2
okay, but this post is about Reid asking the President to do something less behaind the scenes and quiet, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:43 PM in reply to Indie Pro
or an aide. my bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 19, 2009 7:06 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes, and aide, which doesn't necessarily mean the reporting is inaccurate, but doesn't leave us with much context to evaluate. We could be witnessing some good old fashioned buck-passing, a genuine plaintiff cry, or a throwaway line. And who knows? The White House may even be whipping the vote unbeknownst to said aide or in conjunction with these comments so that Reid's office is ratifying the WH strategy.
Of course, the headline we're bound to get will somehow demonstrate a lack of presidential leadership. Then we see a story about how if you're not in the room, you probably don't know what's going on. Now I wonder if we'll get another story about a lack of transparency. And on and on it goes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 20, 2009 10:00 AM in reply to fbacon2
as someone who has been writing letters and making phone calls and talking to anyone who will listen about the public option, mandates and healthcare reform, I can tell you, from this side, the president has not been fighting for it. Maybe secretly, as many here wnat to wish, but I've seen no evidence, which is all I've been saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 20, 2009 1:33 PM in reply to fbacon2
The problem is that it's more than judging the prez for what he fights for, but rather judging him for what news reports tell us he's fighting for. It's gets tiresome reading these news wires of some anonymous aide or some lawmaker making some comment that may or may not reflect the true trajectory of the negotiations.
Second, heartily. A thousand times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 20, 2009 1:09 AM in reply to Indie Pro
exactly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 19, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to CT Voter
Thanks...
I hope I'm not being too optimistic.
good luck to us all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 19, 2009 5:50 PM in reply to CT Voter
I think people seriously overestimate the power Reid has. He has only as much power as the caucus gives him. What's he going to do to get recalcitrant Senators to vote the way he wants them to vote? Strip them of their chairmanships? He has no such power. Move their parking spaces to Alexandria? No such power. Unless the caucus backs him, he can't really do squat, and the caucus is NOT going to go along with any punitive measures.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 6:02 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
If Reid can't get his caucus in line, then what power does the president have to do the same thing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to CT Voter
yes yes.
reid can't do anything. The head of the democratic party can't do anything.
All those leadership titles are just meaningless titles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 6:09 PM in reply to Indie Pro
It's a serious question. I would have predicted that the Senate Majority leader could have a much greater impact on the career of a Senator than the President, so tell me why the President should have more of an impact? Senators are {often} going to be around longer than Presidents, so why wouldn't one's colleagues have a better chance of influencing your vote?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:11 PM in reply to CT Voter
I would have predicted that the Senate Majority leader could have a much greater impact on the career of a Senator than the President, so tell me why the President should have more of an impact?
I don't understand why a "greater impact" is even at issue. I believe the president can have an impact, ecpecially as the head of the party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 19, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to CT Voter
I'm with you too and too bad if Indie Pro doesn't agree. Wow!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
October 20, 2009 7:37 AM in reply to CT Voter
I think you're right. That's pretty much how every successful president has approached it. "You guys are in charge. Just send me the bill."
Both Roosevelts come to mind immediately. Lincoln. Kennedy. Johnson. (I'm not forgetting Viet Nam but think about what he accomplished before you respond.) Jefferson.
They were all pretty hands off as I recall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Aunt Sam
October 20, 2009 2:40 AM in reply to _jonny_5_
And there ya go.....
Well said and appreciated!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 20, 2009 1:07 AM in reply to CT Voter
no, the problem is Obama and the White House. See today's Reich column.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
October 19, 2009 4:55 PM
I do agree somewhat with Reid, but it's time we Grab a Mop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Obama1st
October 19, 2009 4:57 PM
I will not contribute to the DSCC at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 19, 2009 4:59 PM
I will not vote in 2012 unless Obama steps up, and I have voted for Dems in every presidential election since I turned 18.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sanssouci0
October 19, 2009 5:20 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
I would concur, but am really not quite sure of the inside hard knuckled bargaining that is going on now. Obama may be holding off deliberately so as to avoid centrist democrats (Lincoln) from being associated with a (locally) radioactive Obama health care plan and thereby creating electoral liability down the road. (see Arkansas polling data: pro-public option, ANTI-Obama) Obama may also be trying to lie low, so as to prevent the conservative republican media machine from targeting him with socialist epithets, and trying to whip their extremist base into a frenzy again. This would explain their criticism of progressive groups' ad attacks on Reid etc.
Unfortunately, given the very weak hand Obama has played in legislative negotations so far, I think that this is simply capitulation, pure and simple. It is more likely that he and certain democrats are now posturing feebly as advocates of the public option, so as to soften the disappointment to the liberal base.
If Obama does receive a plan with a strong public option, many commentators, throwing the caution of perfect hindsight to the wind, will probably laud this as a masterful, tactical victory for Obama.
On the other hand, if the Dem's do not get a bill with at least some form of an opt-out public option, Obama and the Dem's will be obliterated by the base. The slaughter in 2010 will make 1994 look mild in comparison.
I fear, the democratic party has not exorcised its self-destructive demons, but we shall see....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 19, 2009 5:24 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Would you have Obama Stake all his credibility on the Line w/ Reid in ultimate control of the outcome(not vote but the language of the bill).
That would be stupid. Obama is many things but stupid is not one of them.
Besides, it seems that the admin. is taking the tortoise route instead of the hare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 19, 2009 10:58 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
I don't think that's necessasry, but I would for two reasons:
1) His presidency will be judged by his success or failure on HCR.
2) A bad bill, i.e., one that forces people to buy health care insurance that they can't afford, will doom the Democratic party for years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
October 19, 2009 9:39 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
I also will not vote for Obama again if he fails to force a public option. I view this as test of whether he is a gasbag politician or an honest leader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
October 19, 2009 5:03 PM
Obama promised healthcare reform with a public plan. He did not say he was going to hand it off to the Congress to absolve himself of what reform looked like. That is not the change we were asked to vote for. He made a promise to the American People to do all that was in his power to deliver his campaign bullet points which included a public plan. If he signs a bill without a public option because he did not get in the trenches and fight for one he can kiss 2010 goodbye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 5:07 PM
"Right now, we don't have 60 Democratic Senators in lockstep with one another on the public option...
Who?!?!
Which Democrats are threatening to make the Republican filibuster on HCR bi-partisan?
Who is it?
Do they chair a committee?
Do they get DNC support?
Who are these Democrats willing to kill HCR because they don't want to see any cost controls in HCR?
Which Dem is ready to join the Republicans because they want a nice job working for the Insurance Industry after they lose the next election?
WHy is Reid protecting them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 5:08 PM in reply to Indie Pro
and I'm beginning to find Obama's unwillingness to fight for a good, solid public option rather distasteful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 19, 2009 6:06 PM in reply to Indie Pro
As if you ever thought it was tasteful??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:10 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I was willing to believe he was waiting for the committees to conclude their work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 19, 2009 6:19 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'd say it's hard to tell what he's hoping for. He could be working hard for it, he might be hoping it goes away. It'll come out later, but right now it's hard to tell. There could be very good tactical reasons for playing an inside game.
I wish/hope a Democratic Senator would declare/is declaring (openly or privately) to Reid: No public option, no cloture and no health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
I'm with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 20, 2009 1:19 AM in reply to Indie Pro
so am I
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cmpnwtr
October 19, 2009 5:30 PM
Does Reid like being in the Senate and being majority leader? Do the Senate Dems like being a majority party? Does Obama like being president?
Then step up, NOW, or you can forget about all of the above, because Harry Reid will be gone in 2010, The Dems will lose the Congress and the Presidency, by 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
October 19, 2009 5:43 PM
Obama's failure to lead is absolutely pathetic. Sure Reid's a wimp, but he's getting no help from Obama. None. Could Obama really be this weak and inept?
Something smells about this whole refusal to fight for his supposed signature issue, and I don't think it's any clever political strategy.
If Obama can't find the balls or desire to lead on this issue, what will he find them for?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:05 PM in reply to tommyo
No, what is pathetic is your expectation that he has to draw dozens of lines in the sand to get his own parties leadership to take responsibility over doing their own fucking job.
The White House doesn't control the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. It is up to Reid and Pelosi to get a bill crafted and passed and sent to the President's desk. Not President Obama's.
But thanks for getting peeved at the wrong people, it sure helps the process along.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 19, 2009 6:14 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Great post. Too bad it was wasted on Number??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
October 20, 2009 2:36 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
Um, you might want to look up a certain President by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson sometime. He didn't get Medicare and the Civil Rights Act passed by sitting on the sidelines, waiting for the Congressional leadership to "do their own fucking jobs."
Contrary to the beliefs of many around here, history actually did not begin in 1990.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
molama
October 19, 2009 5:50 PM
Would someone please explain to me why Obama is so loathe to come out strongly for the public option? What does he have to lose, except that which he never had? Even if it fails, he can say, "I tried my hardest, now blame Congress if it didn't pass." Seriously, what has he got to lose? What am I missing here?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 5:59 PM in reply to molama
So the repeated statements to the effect of "I think the public option is the best approach" aren't enough? He should categorically state "I won't sign any bill unless it has a public option"? Is that people want?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:02 PM in reply to CT Voter
isn't he doing that with other aspects of the bill? why is that more important?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
molama
October 19, 2009 5:50 PM
Would someone please explain to me why Obama is so loathe to come out strongly for the public option? What does he have to lose, except that which he never had? Even if it fails, he can say, "I tried my hardest, now blame Congress if it didn't pass." Seriously, what has he got to lose? What am I missing here?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:01 PM in reply to molama
Easy, the White House end of Pennsylvania Ave. doesn't control the legislative process at the other, at all. It would politically be suicidal (and thus policy suicide) for the White House to draw lines in the sand while the sausage gets made. They have veto power (literally) over the product, but it is woefully misguided to think that the administration must, or that it should drive this while the that process plays out.
Look at what happened when the Clinton administration tried to drive healthcare reform by drawing up the plan, then presenting it to Congress expecting Congressional Dems. to die politically for a bill they had no hand in crafting. It died without even getting a vote. The system is no different now. This will be a fight on the Hill to get a bill, as it should be. And the Obama administration learned the lessons from 93-94, as well as lessons from other administrations about trying to be the driver on big policy on the hill from the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. Witness Bush's failures on immigration reform and on Social Security privatization for example. And that was with a rubber stamp GOP majority.
Those on the hill are responsible for getting legislation passed and to the President to sign (or veto). That anonymous "top Capitol Hill aide" sources are trying to throw sand in the publics eyes and make this abotu the WHite House, and that people bite on it, is pathetic to say the least.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:03 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
doesn't control the legislative process at the other, at all. It would politically be suicidal (and thus policy suicide) for the White House to draw lines in the sand while the sausage gets made.
are you saying Obama has drawn no lines in the sand on this bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Correct. Since there isn't even "a" bill yet to draw lines over. ANd it would be politically dumb to draw one in this circumstance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:14 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Obama has drawn lines in the sand on what the bill needs to contain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:19 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Name them. I mean specific items in the bill, not principals and overarching goals, but specific language of component in a bill mark-up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:30 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
exchanges, deficit neutral etc
you're not being serious right? Surely you've watched one of his many speeches where he lays out what the bill must contain?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 7:41 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes I am being serious and I have watched and/or read not just the President's public speeches, but have been following the ins and outs of the sausage making since before the President was sworn in.
And as I said, general principals and overall goals, not a specific component or language. The very broad outline ones you cite underscore my point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 6:26 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Well, the "I won't sign a bill that raises one dime in taxes" is a pretty straight line in the sand. . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 7:45 PM in reply to CT Voter
Your quote is not something the President has ever said. He did however outline a basic goal, principal of saying “I will not sign [a bill] if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”
Which is, as I pointed out from the outset, a broad principal, and not a specific approach to component of a bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 20, 2009 10:06 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
he could do the same with the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
October 19, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
This is just silly. Major legislation is never achieved without a strong lead from the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:16 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Not silly at all. Major legislation is not presented with ultimatums from the White House if it is your own party in control on the Hill, nor is it presented as a final product for them to pass (witness Clinton 93-94).
The president drawing a line on a particular component of a bill is a last resort option, and all it does is paint a target on it for the opposition. The GOP would love nothing better than to make defeating a specific bill proposal be the goal line and the media narrative.
The discussion about what has to be in the bill between the administration and the leadership (of his own party) on the hill happens behind closed doors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:37 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
yet he could advocate for provisions in the bill without doing any of the things you state in your comment.
In his speeches he could talk about how the public option is the best cost control measure outside of actively regulating, or he could talk about how the public option saves money, or about how with mandates a public option may be the only line of defense for those who are not getting subsidies.
he could speak, he could talk, he could actively campaign for the public option without a single ultimatum
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 8:04 PM in reply to Indie Pro
"yet he could advocate for provisions in the bill without doing any of the things you state in your comment. "
Wrong. The GOP was forced over the summer recess to make crap up out of whole cloth to rail against and gin up ("death panels", "no medical privacy", "access to your bank accounts" etc. etc.) precisely because there was no specific line in the sand.
He is rightly kicking the puck back into play towards Congress, and it defuses the opposition and doesn't validate the "Obamacare" memes and frames that the GOP is salivating to use, and have tried but failed to get it to stick precisely because of what I pointed out.
The second President Obama draws a specific line in the sand (not general outlines) and makes it a do or die point in a bill, that becomes precisely what ALL opposition and all wobbly centrists will focus on.
This is why the GOP was so effective in killing the Clinton initiative in 93-94, particularly since the members of Congress had no hand in crafting it, and were not willing to go to the mattresses over something that they had no hand in creating. It was a political disaster, were it never made it out of a single committee much less got to a floor debate, all while the insurance industry was able to savage it for months on end with massive ad buys ("Harry & Louise", etc.).
A disaster this administration has correctly learned from.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 20, 2009 10:02 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
you still think he hasn't drawn any lines in the sand. You're a moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Numbersguy
October 19, 2009 6:08 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
We are not talking about the WH writing the bill. We are talking about the WH giving CLEAR DIRECTION. And that is always part of the WH strategy. Yes, indeedy, they do draw clear lines and make statements like "I have my veto pen ready, and I will veto legislation which ..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to Numbersguy
That happens face to face, not through the media. Not when it is your own party in the leadership on the Hill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
October 20, 2009 2:53 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
Easy, the White House end of Pennsylvania Ave. doesn't control the legislative process at the other, at all blah blah blah...
Um, you might want to look up a certain President by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson sometime. He didn't get Medicare and the Civil Rights Act passed by sitting on the sidelines, waiting for the Congressional leadership to "do their own fucking jobs."
Contrary to the beliefs of many around here, history actually did not begin in 1990.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
October 19, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to molama
Actually, I think it has to do with Clinton's strategy in the 90s. Clinton stated that he would veto anything that didn't have universal care in the 90s (today you could swap it with public option). Clinton's plan fell like a rock. That's why he's hesitating. He's waiting for the right moment (in conference) where he can make his demands.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to calchala
BINGO!
The Obama administration knows perfectly well what they are doing and knows why that shouldn't be drawing any lines in the sand at this juncture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:46 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
on what are you basing this assumption?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 8:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Because I have read a lot, as well as have had lengthy conversations with people who were involved in the Clinton initiative in 93-94, and have delved deeply into learning from all that what went wrong.
As the NYT article on the Big Dogs take on Obama's approach to heathcare reform back in June put it:
"Mr. Obama is approaching the issue in a different way. Rather than developing his own detailed proposal, he is setting out broad principles and letting lawmakers draft the specifics of a plan that they believe can pass."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 19, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to molama
I'd like someone to explain to me what would be the purpose of him fighting any harder for the PO.
The House would vote for it.
Most of the Dems in the Senate would vote for it.
The majority of Americans want it.
So from what I understand, people want the president to make a grand statement to millions of people in order to convince 8 Senators to vote for a health care bill with the PO. It sounds like back room deal time, not some grand proclamation to satisfy the base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 20, 2009 1:24 AM in reply to molama
you are missing the Reich columns. Obama cut a deal with insurers to kill the PO, that's what's going on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 5:56 PM
We don;t need 60 votes on the PO. We need only 50 votes on the PPo. We only need 60 votes to end debate and thus prevent a filibuster. The blind quote form "a top Capitol Hill" (a worthless source if ever there was one) is but the first red flag that should go up when assessing the credibility of this "story".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 19, 2009 6:05 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Maybe the top Congressional aide is a cousin to the "senior White House official" who talked about the "liberal fringe" on the internets last week. . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:09 PM in reply to CT Voter
For all we know, "a top Capitol Hill aide" could be Mitch McConnell's head nut-sack washer. This blind source crap is just that. Crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:39 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
so now you call into question TPM's reporting.
talk about whining
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 7:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yep I am calling into question the reporting. This is borderline "some say" and the effect it is having on the "he is selling us out" crowd is déjà vu all over again. Thanks for proving my point. (again)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Numbersguy
October 19, 2009 6:01 PM
I am FU.CKING TIRED of being ignored by Obama. I paid money to get this man elected - OK, I'm not Soros, but I contributed more money in that election than ever before.
I DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO GET BETTER REPUBLICAN POLICIES.
I am the base, and I WANT SOME FU.CKING CONSTITUANT SERVICE. IT'S MY F.UCKING TURN.
I am tired of waiting for Olympia. Really, she can jump in a lake (I'd say "F.UCK HER", but then someone might make me and .... yucko).
Obama needs to COME OUT FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION. NOW.
Does he want my money for Dems in 2010? If not, continue as he is going. I will tell you this - neither independents nor republicans are contributing to Democratic politicians. I will, but only if this comes out right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:07 PM in reply to Numbersguy
I'm fucking tired of whiney idiots who scream that it is up the President Obama to get bills in Congress (even though he has no control or even authority to set foot in the building except by invitation) through to his desk and post hyperbolic tantrums.
So I guess we are even.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Numbersguy
October 19, 2009 6:10 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
You don't know much about congress, I see. The President has no formal powers, but he has a lot of informal power, and the ability to exercize informal power defines the difference between effective and ineffective presidents.
Read "Master of the Senate" to understand informal power. But importantly read something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Numbersguy
I know plenty about the issue at hand thank you. And I stand by my statements.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Numbersguy
October 19, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
What is your position in this whole thing, outside of the need to troll away? We have a 60 vote effective democratic caucus. We have a position which is supported by 80 % of the Democrats. What is the problem with getting the president behind a position that most democrats support, and which will take some pressure to get thru?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:48 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
you think Obama hasn't drawn any lines in the sand as far as what needs to be in the bill. I think that's pretty telling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 7:54 PM in reply to Indie Pro
AH yes... it is VERY telling.. I am a plant .. a troll.. misinformed.. don;t know anything.. yadda yadda yadda...
You are looking to be outraged and already screaming we are betrayed, etc. etc.
This is going to be hashed out between the administration and the leadership not through anonymous "Top Capitol Hill aides" leaking swamp gas to the media and blogs, but in face-to-face talks behind closed doors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 20, 2009 10:27 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are under-insured," the president said at a White House press conference
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 19, 2009 6:35 PM in reply to Numbersguy
He has something every Senator needs, for sure. But nobody is supposed to know about that stuff. It's all back door. He can give - and withhold - a great deal, but he should be exercising that kind of power behind the scenes. I'm not saying he's doing that. He's a lawyer: you can't tell what he's thinking. And it's impossible to find out. I agree: if he wants a public option (that's if) coming out and drawing a line in the sand wouldn't do any good and might do a lot of harm. Do you really think most Democratic Senators are in the dark as to what he wants? If he's smart, he's not being half as ambivalent in private as he is in public.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 8:05 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
BINGO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
October 20, 2009 3:03 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
I'm fucking tired of whiney idiots who scream that it is up the President Obama to get bills in Congress (even though he has no control or even authority to set foot in the building except by invitation) through to his desk and post hyperbolic tantrums.
And I'm fucking tired of excuse-making idiots who believe, or pretend to believe, that history began in 1990 with Clinton. As I've posted twice upthread, look up the history of Johnson and Medicare sometime, or Johnson and the Civil Rights Act. Damn good thing Johnson didn't claim back then that it was all up to Congress and he had to stay out of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 20, 2009 9:51 AM in reply to gharlane
I don't think people are suggesting that History started in 1990, I believe the constant reference to the 90's is because is is MORE RELEVANT than the Johnson era in this context. Washington today is a lot more like the 90's era Washington than the 60's era.
I suppose next we should talk about how great Republicans are because Lincoln was a great Pres.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
October 20, 2009 9:19 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
Um.... epic fail.
What, specifically, has changed in Washington -- and more specifically, at the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to render it either impossible or undesirable for Obama to do what Johnson did in passing Medicare and the Civil Rights Act?
One could go on for pages about how the Republican Party has changed since the era of Lincoln. (In fact, there have been several changes, including its change into the party of monopoly big business at the end of the 19th Century, and the party of the disaffected Dixiecrats and the "Southern Strategy" at the beginning of the Nixon era, to name but two.)
Your problem is that you have failed to name a single thing about Washington that has changed, much less anything that's changed that's, you know, relevant to the issue under discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 21, 2009 11:03 AM in reply to gharlane
What's changed?... Really?
I felt it really didn't need to be said, but here is goes.
1. Unprecedented Hyper-partisanship crippling ability to do anything.
2. In the 60's, opposition was based on idealogical stands on pieces of legislation, not simple opposition to the succes of the country that might reflect well on the president.
3. 24 hour news, (as well as Fox "News")
4. Evening news anchors that were trustworthy (RIP Mr. Cronkite) and stated the facts without the need to give equal time to the opposing POV if it was not in any way factual.
5. Even larger Dem majorities in the Senate and the House
6. Overwhelming public support after a national tragedy (JFK), similar to the public support Bush squandered after 9/11.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
timba
October 19, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to Numbersguy
I'm with you 100% and I just wrote and called Obama ... AGAIN ... to tell him so. He's playing games with us - it shouldn't have to be like pulling teeth - we shouldn't have to beg him for every crumb. Just do what we freaking elected you to do.
And if you think Obama doesn't have the muscle to control Harry Reid ... of course he does - he's just not using it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 19, 2009 6:28 PM in reply to timba
You guys really need to stop taking everything he does or doesn't do as a personal insult.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 19, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to Numbersguy
How can you consider yourself part of the "base" when you so easily threaten to jump ship?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Numbersguy
October 19, 2009 6:52 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
Who said that I jumping ship? I am not making contributions, yep. But that's the extent of it at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
October 19, 2009 6:03 PM
I don't care about all the fucking rangling. How many damn times do we have to tell you, you put a PO in the final bill or it's over for Dems in 2010. The FIRST thing I do if they pass a bill without a PO is unregistering as a Dem. I promise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 19, 2009 6:12 PM in reply to theone718
How do we know you were ever registered as a Dem. I am curious who you would vote for if not for Obama? A Republican? After all you have seen from the thugs, and you would consider voting for them. What do you think you will get from them. Certainly not even any form of health care, for certain. Go ahead and jump off the bridge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 19, 2009 7:59 PM in reply to lousgirl84
You gonna ask him for his papers? Jeez, let a guy blow off some steam. You know Independents vote for the Democrats too sometimes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 19, 2009 6:04 PM
I will take optimism over "wanting to believe" the worst.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bob Fulkerson
October 19, 2009 6:04 PM
Reid and the Dem's do not have 60 votes. They have 58 seats, some of which are held by extremely conservative dems, and 2 independent seats. The Majority Leader is fighting hard for the best health care bill possible, and he's always fought hard for Nevada, which most outside groups don't seem to understand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
timba
October 19, 2009 6:25 PM in reply to Bob Fulkerson
No! No! No! Even Schumer and Rockefeller plainly state that if Reid puts it in it takes 60 to take it OUT. It only takes Reid to put it in. So freaking put it in!
http://www.actblue.com/page/harryreidad?refcode=huff
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 19, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to timba
hear, hear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Numbersguy
October 19, 2009 6:12 PM
In point of FACT, most of you seem to have forgotten that we DO NOT need 60 votes. We need 50, because reconciliation can be used starting on Oct 15. Today is Oct 19, so it's Molly bar the door, or it oughta be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:20 PM in reply to Numbersguy
Funny, I pointed it out yet you claim I need to "read something" because I don;t know what I'm talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drwu
October 19, 2009 6:13 PM
If you were hoping that Obama and Reid would provide hope or, at the least, Medicare for all, think again. These two are hopeless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
timba
October 19, 2009 6:19 PM
Here's the link to a powerful Nevada ad - the perfect combination of carrot and stick - I contributed $50 - let's put out money where our mouths are bring this bastard Reid to his knees
http://www.actblue.com/page/harryreidad?refcode=huff
Go Viral!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 19, 2009 6:33 PM in reply to timba
I'm sorry I just can't take you seriously with that avatar. Fry's character was, well, stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drwu
October 19, 2009 6:20 PM
...Moreover, Obama and Reid, are tools for the lobbyists. Obama's # 1 single biggest political campaign contributor was Goldman-Sachs. Democrat Baucus hauls in over 3 million from the health care lobby. So-called progressive, Barney Frank gets another 3 million from the bank lobby.
Is there a lobby for ordinary folks? We need it.
Wake up saps, you/we are being had?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to drwu
Yawn.
(scroll)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
October 19, 2009 6:42 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
"The White House doesn't control the other end of Pennsylvania Ave." Yes, that's just what FDR and LBJ said.
Your another Obama apologist. Wake up. Wishing he could lead doesn't make it so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 19, 2009 7:36 PM in reply to tommyo
Yawn
(scroll)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
October 20, 2009 9:30 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
In other words, Lestadelc knows he ain't got nuthin'. Score: tommyo 1, Lestadelc FAIL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 19, 2009 7:06 PM in reply to drwu
Morever, you are getting ahead of yourself. There's no bill yet, and plenty of pressure is being exerted on the House and on the President to have the courage of their convictions. Calling the only hopes we have for real reform "tools of lobbyists" just isn't helpful.
As a Dr, you should recognize that this tendency to prematurely declare defeat is the same sickness that has been afflicting Democrats for a generation.
Reply | Flag Abuse