TPMDC
Sources: White House Pushing Back Against Senate Public Option Opt Out Compromise
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
Multiple sources tell TPMDC that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up 60 members in support of a public option with an opt out clause, and are continuing to push skeptical members. But they also say that the White House is pushing back against the idea, in a bid to retain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
"They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger," said one source close to negotiations between the Senate and the White House. "they're certainly not calming moderates' concerns on opt out."
This new development, which casts the White House as an opponent of all but the most watered down form of public option, is likely to yield backlash from progressives, especially those in the House who have been pushing for a more maximal version of reform.
It also suggests, for perhaps the first time, that the White House's supposed hands off approach, to ostensibly allow the two chambers in Congress to craft their own bills, has been discarded.
High level White House officials have floated the trigger trial balloon a number of times in the press, and it seems they continue to do so, even at this crucial stage of the health care reform process, when their involvement is greatest. That has senators who support the public option concerned.
"Historically, 'trigger' mechanisms have not been successful, and they are not a substitute for a strong public health insurance option," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) in a curiously timed statement. "A 'trigger' simply delays price competition, which in turn will delay affordability for consumers and moves us farther away from the goals of health care reform. Already, we are seeing insurance companies threatening to game the system, by raising their prices in advance of reform. The only way to curb price-gouging by health insurance companies is with real competition on day one--that is the public option."
Late update: In response to this report, White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer issued the following statement. "The report is false. The White House continues to work with the Senate on the merging of the two bills. We are making good progress toward enacting comprehensive health reform."
Comments (473) | 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.
Walter Mitty
October 23, 2009 3:21 PM
The insurance cos will price gouge, voters will be pissed that the health reforms didn't work and the Dems will get slaughtered in 2010 and 2012. There is backroom deal-making going on here, The Obama Administration has likely promised a trigger and in return the health insurance industry will not jack up their rates and will keep their money out of 2010 elections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
You just know so much don't you? NOT!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
October 23, 2009 6:49 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Obama working to get public option
By Michael O'Brien - 10/23/09 12:36 PM ET
The White House is concentrating on winning Senate votes to pass health reform with a public option, a spokesman said Friday
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64529-obama-working-on-getting-public-option-votes-in-senate
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 23, 2009 9:53 PM in reply to FebM
don't see what this story proves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
October 23, 2009 3:50 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
I'm thinking, if this is true, it's to get snowe on board, but these sources seem to be connected to Baucus. Baucus is the only one who wants Snowe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
October 23, 2009 4:43 PM in reply to calchala
Nah, the white House has been working with Snowe long before the Finance Committee. I think Obama wants to "reward" Snowe for being serious about their negotiations and how she was willing to buck party pressure. They probably cut a deal with Snowe when it looked like there wasn't the votes for a PO otherwise.
If the White House negotiated with Snowe and then hangs her out to dry, what are the odds any future Republican will be willing to work with the White House. Also what happens when the Dems lose the 60 seats in 2010? Working with Snowe is a reach out to the GOP moderates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
October 23, 2009 4:46 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Then they'd come from the WH, these are congressional sources though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 5:27 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Working with Snowe is a reach out to the GOP moderates.
Hah! Yeah, all one of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
October 23, 2009 10:02 PM in reply to slb
Actually, there is a women's tag-team of moderates, the Maine Main Moderates. Collins takes the Bail-out, oops, I mean the Stimulus, and Snowe takes health care reform. Next hot issue? Collins' turn again to be the 'moderate.'
You'll never see both of them in the ring at the same time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
October 23, 2009 11:55 PM in reply to Cal Gal
More than that, during the Bush years, you often heard about them being moderates, and in support of Democratic initiatives, but when the time came to pull the lever on a vote, they were faithful to the Republican party line. I think bowing to Snowe under the pretense of inclusion and bipartisan cooperation, is as waste of time and has produced nothing of value for the progressive agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
October 23, 2009 7:22 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
"What are the odds any future Republican will be willing to work with the White House?"
Really? You're asking this after having been, say, ALIVE for the past nine months? Same odds either way – zero.
This isn't a reach-out. It's a reach-around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 24, 2009 1:39 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
they'll lose their 60 vote majority it they cut a deal with snowe for a lousy plan. Pass a good tough plan with a strong PO and the Dems would gain in both houses; especially if they make at least part of the reforms go into effect next year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
October 24, 2009 2:08 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
"I think Obama wants to "reward" Snowe"
I can think of better ways to reward Snowe than by screwing over 300 million Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
October 26, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Yes the evidence to support your comment is just overwhelming. Republicans have been lining up to support any and all of obama's policies. The Republican votes on all major legislation are testament to their honesty and sincerity in wanting to do what is best for the country regardless of what the base thinks. If we can just trash this health care thing enough to get Olympia on board it'll be smooth sailing with the Republicans from here on out. No more obstruction, no more vows to oppose everything Obama does, no more prayers for his failure. Yup that's what's going to happen, just get President Snow on board and its all good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
October 23, 2009 5:05 PM in reply to calchala
geez, it has nothing to do with that!.
obama has cut his deals and now must deliver for the drug and insurance industry.
using snowe is just an excuse to make people buy it.
smart people wont and its good-bye obama!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 24, 2009 1:40 AM in reply to JadeZ
this may be true, sad to say
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 23, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
"and in return the health insurance industry will not jack up their rates and will keep their money out of 2010 elections."
Even if such a deal were cut do you really believe the insurance companies would honor it? Give me a break.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
October 23, 2009 8:57 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
WTF is this. I didnt vote for fucking olympia Snowe WTF is this nonsesne
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
October 23, 2009 9:59 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Dream on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 24, 2009 1:35 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
i suspect so
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 24, 2009 11:48 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
Maybe. But it doesn't matter.
If there is any truth to these backroom whispers (and there is no assurance that these whispers are true), the president must be opposed. We must ensure that this independent branch, this check-and-balance branch, continues to feel pressure from those of us who demand reform that reforms.
Write, call, call and write, over and over ad nauseum, and never let up. Help these congressional "representatives" in either house know that if there is a political bloodbath in 2010, it will arise from HCR that fails to reform, not because the health care industries pump money into the elections that will probably pump in there regardless the outcome of HCR.
Oh yes, there is one further thing I believe: Swing year elections have low voter turnout. That's the common wisdom, Right?
That "common wisdom" was proven wrong in 2006. It must be proven wrong again in 2010. No matter how disappointed we may feel about the crop of Dems now in office, we can not afford to forget they aren't the real enemy here.
The real, anti-government, anti-democratic (small "d") enemy are the Rethugs, and they are becoming ever more radical, ever more representative of fringe ideologies, and we must do everything in our power to keep them out of government until they either reform (unlikely at this point) or completely fracture out of existence and more moderate conservatives find themselves a new banner under which to fly.
It is lesser-of-the-evils time here and we must not become blinded by our own impractical purist tendencies and, by doing so, let them back in the door to power.
They can never again be allowed a bite at that apple. If they do, this once promising dream of a democratic republic could disappear.
I apologize if this sounds a little too tinfoil hattish. I am a scientist by nature, and trained in methods and means of communication by education. The empirical evidence is just stacked too high for me to continue denying its existence. I am convinced they are that kind of enemy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:21 PM
rut-roh!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Cue the hero-worshippers and apologists..in 3 - 2 - 1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 3:34 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Not sure how its helpful to yell "apologist" at anyone who might disagree with you, or who might find this unsourced article an a pile of dog poop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to Dorn76
yell?
helpful?
I didn't intend either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'm sorry, it was more of a "labeling" of anyone who disagrees.
If it makes you happy, knock yourself out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:46 PM in reply to Dorn76
I"m not labelling anyone who disagrees, but you have to admit, there are some hero-worshippers and apologists here, right? Come on, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes, there are. It just raised a hackle a teeny bit (but only one hackle), when you put that out there on top, basically pre-judging anyone who might post a retort.
I know you are a good thinker, and a wiseass....I aspire to both as well, but usually only succeed at the latter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:04 PM in reply to Dorn76
Meh. No worries. I find you completely respect worthy. I never intended to mean people like you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Cheers.
Keep up the good fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to Dorn76
and by the way, if you look, I never agreed with this report, or heralded it. I simply guessed what was to follow, and yes, maybe stirred the pot a little.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I mke no apologies for my hero worshipping. I could be worshipping a lot worse I must say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to Dorn76
come on. Look at these people attacking me, and others!
for what?
Check out.
Come on? You know there are some "true believers" around here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 3:46 PM in reply to Dorn76
Amen to that. Indie Pro is just negative. Every post is more negative than the last. This piece is pure bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to lousgirl84
priceless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 3:50 PM in reply to Indie Pro
It's true IndiePro.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to lousgirl84
whatever gets you through the night. If I have to be your enemy because I don't agree with everything the President is doing, or has done, then I don't mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You obviously don't agree with ANYTHING he's done because you never have anything positive to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to FreeRider
you are frothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 23, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Hey IndiePro has his right to pessimism and hyperbole as we do.
I often side w/ Optimism, Indie often takes the opposite track. So what, he's probably about half right(and wrong) as am I.
If this source is accurate and not part of a stategy we might all agree w/, if we were privy to it, than clearly we all should be a bit disappointed. But we have little assurances either way.
I wouldn't be the least bit surpised to find out the WH is just "Chumming the waters" to encourage debate(and discourage complacency) as the PO seems to gain steam.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:44 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I don't view you as an enemy and I don't need anything to get me through the night, least of all anything I have posted here. You need a life if you think that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I didn't say that, at all, and prefer not to be associated with your type of advocacy.
Have a nice day, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to Dorn76
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't remember negatively commenting on anything you said. I will have to look back at my posts. Perhaps I replied to the wrong post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 4:34 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I'd feel better if you attacked me, honestly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 6:10 PM in reply to Dorn76
I guess it made you feel better to suck Indie Pro's butt. Suit yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 6:20 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 6:20 PM in reply to lousgirl84
he did no such thing.
It doesn't take much to see what ya'll are doing, and not want to be a part of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 23, 2009 3:35 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You don't know what is happening behind closed doors! Hope and change! Grab a mop! You're playing checkers Obama is playing Jiujitsu!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to Why oh why
Perhaps Lousgirl will come try to bully me off TPM for this bit of poking fun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'm not bullying you, but you are one of the most negative posters here I must say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to lousgirl84
coming from someone who attacks other posters constantly, I find this hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I am so glad you like it. I don't have the lock on attacking other posters IndiePro. You do your share every day. If you don't like the heat, get out of the f'n kitchen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I attackk back. I argue points.
I'm skeptical. I doubt. I wait for facts!
Quick attack me!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 4:04 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Facts? Now that's a joke! You glum on to any story that paints Obama in a negative light and declare it to be true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 4:13 PM in reply to Indie Pro
could you both cut the petty bickering?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to Neil
welcome to the internet
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 4:23 PM in reply to Indie Pro
not everyone trolls on the internet. only a very small number of misfits do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:24 PM in reply to Neil
troll does not equal bicker
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to Neil
oh wait, my second comment up there could be interpreted as trolling. But really, it was prognosticating
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tlees2
October 23, 2009 6:32 PM in reply to Neil
Hear! Hear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I have seen one post from you arguing anything. Just whining negativity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:20 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I meant to say "haven't" Makes a huge difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:21 PM in reply to lousgirl84
and somehow that's my fault?
I know what I've done. I know what I've argued.
My concern with what you think about it equals zero.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Well then, we finally agree on something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:26 PM in reply to lousgirl84
yeah, that you're a hero-worshipper
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:38 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes, I have already acknowledge that, but what we do agree upon is that I care zero about what you think. So it's mutual.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
October 23, 2009 3:35 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Rahm will get the blame, and deserves most since he's been anti-PO from the start, with the "trigger" as being something he's supported because it will never go into effect.
On the other hand, the buck doesn't stop at Rahm. He works for someone else. And Obama is largely letting Rahm enable the ConservaDems and Blue Dogs to wander off the Caucus Reservation.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to tosh
not to belabor a point, but it would be keeping with Obama's style as far as passing the stimulus, going for "bi-partisan".
But hey. I'm remaining optmistic and hopeful. I'm sure this is all part of a grand and wise strategy, where the President is playing mind games with his own party and supporters, like I've been assured numerous times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 23, 2009 3:51 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I've never quite understood why the stimulus gets pulled in as the analogy on this point. They tried bipartisanship and got a big goose-egg in the House, but the compromises in the Senate were more for necessity because we lacked Franken, leaving Nelson, Snowe, Specter, Collins as the arbiters of the agreement. Nelson was probably a bigger obstacle than the Republicans.
The big assumption from the WH was that they couldn't come in initially with a bigger number, anticipating the Senate would water down the bill. The reporting I've seen is that Rahm and others believed the sticker shock of going up to $1.2 trillion would have locked up the process in Congress. It's counterfactual history to argue they were wrong, but it's hard to blame the final shape of the stimulus (which is still helping, BTW, even it was too small) on the quest for bipartisanship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to fbacon2
Facts mean nothing to these folks. There would have been no stimulus without Snowe, Collins & Specter. Yet, wackadoos like Indie continue to insist Obama did it all for the sake of bi-partisanship.
I don't know if they're dumb or just liars.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to FreeRider
wow. You shouldn't go full froth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'm with you FreeRider.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to lousgirl84
You two guys are equal to Sarah Palin supporters, but for Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:28 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Don't even lump the two in the same sentence. She couldn't wipe his ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to FreeRider
Both!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to lousgirl84
you two are beacons of light and hope.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I am so glad you finally realized that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 24, 2009 11:51 AM in reply to Indie Pro
I must say, you have to be the biggest passive aggressive asshole. You're not trying to "stir the pot". Your just a troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 2:50 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
Passive agressive? Funny how people don't know what that means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 4:28 PM in reply to FreeRider
agree. to some more naive folks "bi-partisanship" is just a concept or a slogan. in reality it's a very important and practical strategy over the long term. not always possible but it's certainly important.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fsudirectory
October 23, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to Indie Pro
hes been shown to do that a few times, lets see if it still holds true....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
October 23, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I don't really see 3 votes as a sign of "bipartisan support". Of in this case 1 vote, unless Collins follows Snowes lead. 58 Dem + 1 Indy + 1 Liberman Pary + 1 Snowe Party vs 39 GOP isn't really "bipartisan". It's really just one party with a few stragglers. It's not like they really pealed off any GOP'ers.
SCHIP was far more bipartisan last year before Bush vetoed it.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 4:38 PM in reply to tosh
i see what you mean about "bipartisanship." but that said, i think Snowe is more important in practical terms.
the thing is: if Snowe supports it, then Republicans have to hold back somewhat for risk of alienating her, and a couple others, permanently. Reps really can't afford any more defections or they won't be able to influence any legislation, filibuster, or anything. so Snowe supporting it makes things a lot more difficult for the opposition.
whereas if Snowe is against it, then they can really hate on it and obstruct, and it solidifys their relationship with Snowe and improves the odds of filibuster and obstruction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
October 23, 2009 4:53 PM in reply to Neil
I don't see Snowe as a positive. Frankly she's a negative at this point. Absent the attempt to get her, it appeared that the Senate was close to a deal for 60 votes. The White House pushed back wanting Snowe, which have given other ConservaDems (and Blue Dogs in the House) cover to stand firm rather than allow the bill to move forward.
What you're getting because of Snowe isn't worth what youre getting for having Snowe along for the ride. She's already admitting that she won't compromise. It's basically a Party of One telling 50+ members of the *other party* what to do.
Granted, Rahm and the WH want this. Even with the ground swell of anger on the hill last week about that AHIP report, the WH has still gone easy on Big Health rather than using it as a lightening rod to move ahead quickly. In fact, if anything, they're back to slowing down the process. :)
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to tosh
i understand, but i think you're missing my point.
it's not that Snowe is that important to Dems. it's that she's important to Republicans.
if she backs reform, then it's a lot harder for Reps because they risk alienating her further, which would greatly weaken the opposition on a large number of other important issues. Reps need every vote they can get on a number of issues and any rift in their party greatly weakens their ability to obstruct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 5:10 PM in reply to tosh
also i think you're exaggerating the negatives of the trigger. it could in fact be better in the long term if it's drafted well, strong, and more politically viable.
for example, if the bureaucracy ramped up in anticipation of the trigger so it could have a strong launch, and if the public option was negotiated to be more robust upon triggering, it could be good.
otoh, an opt-opt with poor political support that created a lot of inter-state disputes and chaos could be a real disaster.
those are just two scenarios, but entirely possible.
keep in mind how weak Social Security and other programs were at first. also keep in mind how badly Hillary Care crashed and burned for being overly ambitious and failing to win durable political support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 5:46 PM in reply to Neil
Uh-huh. And if I were to pick up a discarded lottery ticket on the street and it turned out to be the winning number of a megamillion jackpot, I'd be rich.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 9:13 PM in reply to slb
do you have any specific criticism of the trigger beyond non-sequitur lottery analogies?
basically a trigger is unpopular politically becasue it involves a wait and implies uncertainty. however, a trigger mechanism that actually set difficult goals for private insurance, and defaults to a strong public option, would be a perfectly good outcome.
and i don't know where you get the idea an opt out is necessarily better without actually seeing the legislation.
it seems rather absurd the way people latch onto these incredibly hollow terms like "public option" or "trigger" or "opt-out" or whatever. Any one could be good or bad depending on the details.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
October 23, 2009 10:20 PM in reply to Neil
My problem with the trigger is that it will leave Dems on the hook for a TERRIBLE "reform" at the mid-terms. Nobody will see anything good except for those with pre-existing conditions who will be able to buy exorbitantly priced insurance for the first time.
IF the trigger were to really work, it wouldn't be for years, and by then, the courage of the Dems in fighting for insurance reform will be forgotten by the unwashed amurikan electorate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 24, 2009 1:48 AM in reply to Cal Gal
Good points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
October 24, 2009 4:01 AM in reply to Cal Gal
The real problem with the trigger is that pulling it will, in fact if not in theory, require another vote in Congress; and the Democrats will never be stronger in Congress than they are now. The trigger is poison.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 25, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to SqueakyRat
i think that's true. and is why i have to agree the trigger is my least favorite option. and i don't really like the bluedogs pushing the trigger, but i'm in CA so they don't care what i think.
however, i also see similar problems with an opt out. that will entail a long political battle as well, and effectively weaken the public option.
of course the opt-out feels a little more like going downhill, and the trigger feels more uphill.
but it's still important to emphasize the devils in the details, and either approach could be good, depending.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 12:12 AM in reply to Neil
My point was that your argument that the trigger option could be a good thing depends on some very big IFs that I think are unlikely to happen; hence the lottery analogy.
Yes, a trigger that "set[s] difficult goals for private insurance, and defaults to a strong public option" could be a good thing, but given the current political atmosphere, I don't think it likely that any trigger setup that would get votes that a strong public option get on its own would set anything but token goals for the insurance industry, or that in the unlikely event that the industry fails to meet even those very modest goals, that what would ensue would be anything but a token public option.
I mean, the whole reason most of these guys are pushing for a trigger is that they want a way to protect the insurance industry from real reform and real competition without looking like that's what they are voting for. I don't see them going along with any trigger that is actually likely to get pulled or to have real consequences.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 25, 2009 6:11 PM in reply to slb
i understand that there are big IFs for the trigger. I think what people forget is that's true of ANY approach.
don't forget that an opt-out is effectively a delaying mechanism like a trigger anyways. once legislation passes, it will still take probably years to really take effect. think of all the price setting, bureaucracy ramp up, etc that has to occur. ad that will happen in parallel with political battles to opt-out. that period of instability will delay the effective start date of a smoothly functioning public option,e and will also be a period for Republicans to campaign against reform.
no approach is inherently better than another. the devil is entirely in the details.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 5:37 PM in reply to tosh
Of course, SCHIP probably only got the level of Republican support in Congress that it did because they knew that they could count on Bush to veto it. They got what they wanted without having to be accountable for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Pipe down with that BS! There are no hero worshippers. I'm one of Obama's biggest supporters and I don't like this shit one bit. I'll be mad as hell if he's pushing for this crap just to get Olympia Snowe. It's inexcusable.
But people like you who insist on making the president the enemy in every situation and blaming him for not keeping promises he never made are just a ridiculous bunch of whiners who couldn't win an election or govern to save your miserable lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to FreeRider
wee-eww wee-eww
hyperbole police.
I didn't name you. I'm not against Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:45 PM in reply to FreeRider
not keeping promises he never made
this, I surely don't know what your yapping about
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to Indie Pro
People are whining because he's escalating in Afghanistan. Duh. He campaigned on escalating in Afghanistan.
They're claiming he's breaking a campaign promise by not getting a public option. Obama NEVER campaigned on a public option.
They're whining because he's not prosecuting Bush/Cheney. Obama never even hinted that he would prosecute those criminals.
They're claiming he broke his promise on DADT. Obama never said he would repeal DADT in the first year. If he hasn't done it by the end of his term, then he will have broken his promise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to FreeRider
but you said, "But people like you"
when have I done any of these things?
you people don't realize how frothy you are
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
I didn't see that you mistakenly said tht Obama did not campaign on the public option.
Allow me to draw your attention to Obama's 08 campaign document, "Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America" :
The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) make available the National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover more of the least well-off among us; and (6) allow state flexibility for state health reform plans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 5:20 PM in reply to Indie Pro
sorry to have to point out the obvious for you:
either a trigger for a public option, or an opt-out for a public option, are both still PUBLIC OPTIONS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 5:22 PM in reply to Neil
is water wet?
he said:
Obama NEVER campaigned on a public option.
and I pointed out that he did.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 5:35 PM in reply to Indie Pro
He never campaigned on a public option. NEVER. You find one mention of the term in one document on a campaign website. That's not campaigning.
Find one instance where Obama ever said "public option" in speeches or debates. You can't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 5:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
you are a special kind of true believer. Kudos
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
October 23, 2009 10:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'm with you on this one. Denying that he campaigned on a public option is like Grassley denying that he made the "death panel" claims.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 6:03 PM in reply to FreeRider
Oh -- so you're saying that the campaign's master plan, that all of the Obama supporters kept pointing people to during the primary campaign is just a bunch of feel-good lies to trick progressives into supporting him that he never intended to follow through on? And you think this is a good argument for why he should be supported now?
I myself don't think Obama is that cynical or that evil. I just think he's a little too inclined to get lost in bipartisan idealism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 6:39 PM in reply to slb
I'm saying he never even mentioned "public option." That's a lie. He talked about access and affordability but never public option. He started talking about that about six months ago--after he'd been elected.
I think he wants a public option but it was never a campaign promise.
And I bet you'd never even heard of such a thing six months ago and now you're convinced you can't live without it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 6:42 PM in reply to FreeRider
"Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 7:04 PM in reply to FreeRider
I think he wants a public option but it was never a campaign promise.
And you would be wrong about that.
And I bet you'd never even heard of such a thing six months ago and now you're convinced you can't live without it.
You would be wrong about that, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 7:24 PM in reply to slb
Well, I can't prove you didn't know about a public option. But I dare you to find a single instance where Obama ever talked about a public option during the campaign.
All of his speeches and debate performances are available. Find one instance where he talked about a public option or STFU.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 24, 2009 1:55 AM in reply to FreeRider
there are countless times Obama refers people to his site to read the specifics of his plan, and this is the document that was linked for his healthcare plans. You are as stubborn as an evolution denier.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 24, 2009 3:10 PM in reply to Indie Pro
2 years of campaigning. Hundreds of speeches. Hundreds of interviews. 30 debates.
Yet, you can't find a single instance where Obama even uttered the words "public option"?
I rest my case!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 2:52 AM in reply to FreeRider
I haven't even looked. I found this. It's is plan. You are self deluding idiot. Willful ignorance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 12:35 AM in reply to FreeRider
Putting it in his campaign's master plan is certainly mentioning it. I presume that Obama had some input in putting that document together and that he was familiar with what was in it when he referred people to it when they asked for specifics.
(I distinctly remember that when commenters here criticized his primary speeches as vague, Obama supporters here kept admonishing them to "go to the web site, read his Plan for America on the web site -- it's all there." Why would they have done that if it was not generally assumed that what was in that document was what Obama was promising to do?)
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right (and I neither know nor care whether he actually uttered the phrase "public option" in a public speech during the campaign), if you're trying to say he deliberately didn't mention it because he didn't really support what was in his own stated plan and was trying to give himself some sort of not-so-very-plausible deniability for the future, then you are saying that Obama is a cunning liar and cannot be trusted. Believe that about him if you like, but that is certainly not my impression of him.
Putting the concept in his signature campaign document is, to those of us in the reality-based community, campaigning on it, no matter how you try to redefine the term "campaigning." There is a whole lot more to a political campaign, and in particular to a campaign for the highest office in the land, than making speeches. Putting out policy papers that spell out in more detail than can be included in a stump speech what you intend to do if you are elected is an equally important part.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 25, 2009 9:21 AM in reply to slb
In other words, you got nothing?! Michelle Obama's cookie recipe was also on the campaign website. Did he campaign on her cookies?
Find ONE instance where Obama ever uttered the words "public option" during the campaign. You've got 2 years, 30 debates and hundreds of campaign rallies to search for.
Produce the goods or fuck off!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
her cookies weren't listed under:
Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America"
you willfully ignorant moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 25, 2009 1:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
2 years of campaigning, 30 debates, hundreds of campaign speeches. ZERO times he said "public option."
YOU GOT NOTHING! Therefore, STFU!! LOL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 1:23 PM in reply to FreeRider
yeah, nothing but his campaign literature, you doofus. His plan!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 25, 2009 1:31 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You got nothing! LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 1:34 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yeah, just Obama's plan. The one he referred people to when they asked about the details of his Heathcare plans.
Indeed, it is turning into nothing. I agree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 5:45 PM in reply to Indie Pro
so you're still bickering silliness.
regardless, the point remains that Obama is supporting the public option.
also, he did campaign on HC reform, but the greater emphais was on reform writ large, acknowledging the system is broken and needs an overhaul. he emphasized lowering costs and improving outcomes. he put less emphasis on specific policies. though he did, and does, support the public option.
however, we should always remember he's NOT a legislator. he has the bully pulpit, and veto power. that's it.
so i think he's wise enough, far smarter than posters here, to avoid an over-reach or pre-judgment such as HW Bush's "no new taxes" pledge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 6:07 PM in reply to Neil
With all due respect Neil, you're still butting in a thread where doofus proclaimed something wrong, I corrected him, and yet you blather on about something totally different. I don't understand what your point has to do with what we're talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 6:12 PM in reply to Neil
I'm willing to start a thread with you.
Which Public Option does Obama support?
Triggered, Opt out, Help, Pelosi's new versioin?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 9:25 PM in reply to Indie Pro
that's another lame discussion that misses the point and fails to see health care reform holistically.
again, he's outcome oriented: improved public health, lowered costs, improved efficiency, less overhead, more prevention.
there's many ways to skin that cat.
look around the world and every developed country has different solutions. Japan is more private, employer based, with government subsidy and very tight regulation of fees. insurance companies profit by upselling cadillac (lexus?) plans. some other countries are single payer, but with widely varying approaches.
even within the public option there are many approaches.
asking which one he supports now is a stupid question. he has to lead by following, as they say. he has to time carefully when he switches from pushing from behind closed doors, to getting out ahead for the winning plan.
so far he's doing great and all the panicked kibitzing is really pathetic.
every day i hear from some pundit or poster that healthcare reform is dead, derailed, Obama sold out, etc.
and yet every day progress is being made and so far outcomes are as good or better than i think anyone realistic ever expected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 24, 2009 1:57 AM in reply to Neil
That was alot of comment for, "I don't know. No one knows."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 25, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to Indie Pro
i think your reading comprehension skills need help if that's all you read.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 25, 2009 11:06 PM in reply to Neil
you need to learn to focus on the question at hand
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 6:35 PM in reply to Neil
Agreed and he is far smarter than any of the posters here for certain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to Neil
No, I don't see those qualifiers in there. It says "establish a new public insurance program available to...". It doesn't say "establish a new public insurance program available to...only if private insurance companies don't meet certain benchmarks within a specified period of time."
What he promised to support was a public insurance program that was available to anyone who didn't have insurance through an employer and who didn't qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP; and also to small businesses that wanted to offer health insurance to their employees. Period. To throw in a trigger qualification on that now is what is known as bait and switch, and is generally considered to be dishonest dealing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
am4
October 23, 2009 7:37 PM in reply to Neil
Um, no a "trigger for a public option" is not a "public option." It's a "trigger for a public option."
If you're ever in a gun fight, I suggest bringing the entire gun, not just the trigger. You'll be a lot more effective.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 9:33 PM in reply to am4
that's just inane.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 25, 2009 1:46 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Campaigning on = what the candidate said/promised during the campaign, NOT a one-time mention in a document on a website written by an advisor.
2 years of campaigning, 30 debates, hundreds of speeches and ZERO mentions of "pubic option".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
October 23, 2009 5:20 PM in reply to FreeRider
Excuse me, but among the bullet points of Obama's healthcare plan during the campaign was for a government health insurance option. This is not a promise never made. This was a central part of the campaign. All we are doing is asking him to honor his word. If he works against what he told us he stood for, it is blatant betrayal. Snowe is a Republican regardless of past compromises. There is no healthcare reform Bill that she will support that will transform healthcare or control costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 5:31 PM in reply to xargaw
That is a LIE! I dare you to find ONE instance where Obama even uttered the words "public option" during the campaign. IT. NEVER. HAPPENED.
There was one mention on his entire campaign website but he never campaigned or promised it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 23, 2009 3:23 PM
If this is true, there is no way I would vote for Obama in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Oh, STFU! All of you people whining like a bunch of little girls about how you'll vote 3 years from now is just bullshit.
Just like all those claims to oppose Obama if he didn't vote against FISA. Or the claims to leave the Democratic party if Warren gave the invocation.
Nobody believes your limp-wristed threats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rumpole
October 23, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'd probably phrase it differently, but I think that's basically true. For now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
October 23, 2009 3:41 PM in reply to FreeRider
Well I didn't vote for Obama because of FISA.
That was the reason why I did not vote for him.
So I will await your apology.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 3:43 PM in reply to rbeats
No apology necessary. You're even more irrelevant than I thought. He won without you. Now go away. There's a Nader meeting in 30 minutes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
ROFL. Good post Free Rider
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 23, 2009 3:45 PM in reply to rbeats
Well Sarah Palin appreciated your effort, too bad it came up short.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 23, 2009 4:08 PM in reply to FreeRider
You're a moronic coward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
You are a cowardly moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 23, 2009 4:37 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yes, because I prefer a HCR bill that actually lowers costs rather than forcing people to buy insurance they can't afford.
Internet tough guys are so macho.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
am4
October 23, 2009 7:24 PM in reply to FreeRider
Homophobic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Connor
October 23, 2009 3:41 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Same here. Obama will completely lose progressives if he not only caves on the public option, but strips it to appease...Snowe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to Connor
Yeah, sure he will. He'll lose progressives, just like FDR lost liberals in 1936 because they didn't get what they wanted in the original Social Security Act.
FDR barely squeaked through in 1936 with his 523 electoral votes.
{rolling eyes}
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to FreeRider
It's pretty clear that Obama is no FDR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to again
Analogies are completely lost on people who toss around empty threats.
Regardless of what we get for healthcare reform, liberals won't abandon the only president to do what every other democrat has failed to do. Period.
Enjoy your fantasy but that's all it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 4:02 PM in reply to FreeRider
It's no fantasy - it's a real concern.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to again
It's not a concern. Nobody believes you . . . but you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to FreeRider
while FreeRide is a bit abrasive, i have to basically agree. nobody really cares about voters who take the "my way or the highway" approach and are always threatening to take thier ball and go home.
they tend to be unreliable voters and too difficult to please to be worth the effort. as much as i respect noam chomsky for example, nobody is courting his endorsement. why? becasue he's an idealist, and to please him one would have to alienate 10 voters for every one you gained.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 4:23 PM in reply to FreeRider
Your insistence is refuted by the large number of progressives and Democrats who are very concerned - and are in fact withholding essential fundraising dollars.
Not to mention those of us who work in health care.
This isn't supposed to be about your fandom. It's supposed to be about patients.
Then again, based on your previous posts, why should anyone listen to you? Between your comments "STFU" and "limp-wristed", it's impossible to take you seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 5:16 PM in reply to again
where's the evidence of withholding dollars or support?
i think your perception runs counter to the facts.
historically Obama is still doing exceptionally well in both fund raising and popularity. he just got something like 300K phone calls to congress on HC reform. his popularity and vector are still historically very high. and obviously nobody expected his fund raising to maintain the campaign levels for four years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 6:31 PM in reply to Neil
But it's about more than Obama. I think disillusion with Obama is one reason Creigh Deeds is having a tough time in Virginia and is probably going to lose the gubernatorial election.
Not that Deeds doesn't have his own problems as a candidate, but I do think that if enthusiasm for Obama were higher, if progressive Democrats weren't feeling a bit sucker-punched at this point, that Deeds might be doing better.
So it's about more than whether people will vote for Obama in 2012. It's whether they will support him with enough enthusiasm to generate the kind of political support he will need at lower levels to achieve what he wants to achieve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 25, 2009 6:35 PM in reply to slb
i don't see any basis for that supposition. i think you should look at larger economic and cultural trends rather than thinking it's all Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 5:27 PM in reply to again
Another fantasy! Obama's approval rating is higher than the share of the vote he got in the election. The DNC, DCCC and DSCC have all outraised the Republicans.
So continue with your fantasy about seething liberals who are going to take down this president. But it's a fantasy supported by a few nutters who spend all day on a blog trying to convince themselves of their relevance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 23, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to FreeRider
It's very clear Hillary Clinton is no Cordell Hull. It's also clear that Obama didn't try to rebuild the TVA or pack the Supreme Court. We can have fun with this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Naturalist's Attitude
October 23, 2009 4:29 PM in reply to FreeRider
This mentality is the basic problem facing liberals and progressives. When you say "liberals won't abandon the only president to do what every other democrat has failed to do" do you mean get elected with big majorities in the House and the Senate? Because so far that's what he has done, and I think it's great. It has enabled him to push a much more sensible foreign policy, make sense on drug control and enforcement policies, roll back the Bush/Cheney torture policy, and do many other things besides. But so far we haven't seen him achieve many of the truly big goals, such as health care reform, climate change legislation, and ending DADT. These are big fights because they are some of the most important fights, and having big majorities is a necessary, but certainly not a sufficient, condition for winning those fights. When people here express concern about Obama and accuse him of backing off a progressive agenda, they are arguing that it doesn't matter how big your majorities are if you don't use them. They wonder why it is, with such big majorities, Democrats and the WH didn't start the health care fight from a much better bargaining position, such as taking it for granted that any legislation would include a public option and letting progressives push seriously for a single payer system, then negotiating from there. So to sum up, people here aren't accusing the president of breaking his promises, they are accusing him of sacrificing the real opportunities for change that he himself played an instrumental role in creating. Instead of name-calling and making subtly homophobic remarks, try to participate in a conversation about a real winning strategy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 4:52 PM in reply to The Naturalist's Attitude
Obama and the Democratic Congress has already done a lot. the fact that we're even discussing the finer points of major HCI reform, which will end cherry picking for one HUGE thing and increase support for preventative care for another HUGE thing, is juts one example of many.
there's been increased environmental regulation and more to come
he's changed the emphasis to energy independnace and renewables and is investing heavilly in that
there's been increased financial regulation and more to come
we've moving away from Chicago supply-side Reaganomics
sexual orientation was just added to federal hate crimes
various social issues have changed such as stem cells, creationism in schools as science, DADT is coming, etc
he's stopped torture and extraordinary rendition
he's withdrawing from Iraq
he's completely shifted the US approach on nuclear disarmament, is ending SDI, etc.
i could go on. there's a long list already.
if you haven't noticed you're not paying attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nicteis
October 23, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to Neil
A good list, and I continue to be pleased that Obama won, and that I voted for him. Nothing better was on offer, and he may still do great things, as well as the good ones you noted. I hoped, but never expected, that he would break out of the centrist mold. Centrist is a vast improvement over the starboard tilt of the last 40 years.
"He's stopped torture and extraordinary rendition", however, is inaccurate.
What he has done is to suspend torture, and tone down extraordinary rendition. By laboring to protect all the previous administration's war criminals from any accountability, he has effectively guaranteed that under the next Republican administration, torture will resume, and the dismantling of the Constitution will accelerate. It is for this permanent contribution to the nation's future barbarity, not for the present temporary dip, that he will be remembered by historians of civil liberty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 9:42 PM in reply to nicteis
i don't think he's a centrist. i think he's the most progressive president we've had in decades.
however, he's most importantly a consummate pragmatist. by which i mean he's looking to find the optimum within the possible.
Which is also why he's in office at all and the key to his entire life story and success. if he were less pragmatic, it's not as though Nader or such would be in office. McCain would be President.
people need to get some perspective, not to be defeatist, but to be realistic. we're just now coming off a long era of Reaganomics. the most liberal president in decades was Jimmy Carter, who was a deregulator and for smaller government. Clinton was to the right of Nixon on many economic issues, also a deregulator and ideologically for smaller government. there's still a lot of bluedogs and inertia resisting reform.
people who expect overnight change or think a Progressive candidate can just bully all his desires through Congress, have no sense of history and will always be disappointed for reasons they won't understand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 1:47 AM in reply to Neil
If you see Jimmy Carter as the epitome of a liberal president, then it is no wonder that you see Obama as a progressive rather than a centrist, but I think your perspective has been skewed by the severe rightward swerve the country has taken since the end of the Vietnam War.
Perhaps you are not old enough to actually remember, or perhaps you have simply forgotten, but Carter won the Democratic nomination at least in part because he was seen as a moderate. (Also because he out-hustled the rest of the candidates, but his appeal, especially in the northern part of the country, was as a relatively conservative candidate.) He was a Southerner who had spoken out for civil rights, but he had also been critical of McGovern in 1972 for being too liberal in both foreign and domestic policy. He was the first presidential candidate in my memory to inject religion in a big way into the campaign, and he made much of his born-again Christian roots. He was a reformer, but a moderate one, not one in the mold of Hubert Humphrey.
In 1976, the liberals in the Democratic Party were George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Teddy Kennedy, Jerry Brown, Sargent Shriver, Walter Mondale. Carter was not perceived as being of the same ideological stripe as those guys. In 1976, he won every Southern state except Virginia; he wouldn't have done that if people had seen him as a liberal. And remember that Ted Kennedy challenged him for the nomination in 1980 because Kennedy saw him as too conservative. Carter only seems liberal now in retrospect because the national scene has been dominated by DLC Democrats over the last 20-25 years.
Obama is no Hubert Humphrey progressive. He is not a Russ Feingold progressive. He's a centrist, and that's why his instincts lead him to seek bipartisanship and compromise. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; I just don't think it's good to set unreasonable expectations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 25, 2009 6:32 PM in reply to slb
i think you totally missed my point and should read more carefully before responding.
my point was that Jimmy Carter was the most leftward president we've had in decades, and he was still a deregulator, etc. the point being, we've been on a rightward trajectory politically for several decades. remember even JFK got us into vietnam becasue he campaigned strongly against communism. LBJ's great society was of course largely overshadowed by Vietnam as well.
FDR was did so much after a horrible depression in recent memory, and the rise of fascism in Europe which was also closely tied to corporatism and plutocracy.
context is so important.
I have no doubt that in his heart Obama is one of, if not the most progressive President we've ever had. but the times matter a lot more than the man, ultimately.
what he'll accomplish depends largely on the political climate which has only begun recently swinging towards a more progressive agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 6:32 PM in reply to Neil
I'm paying attention, but if you defend Obama here with some posters, you are labeled as a worshipper (which really doesn't bother me at all).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 4:13 PM in reply to again
I'm a bit young to recall, but was FDR being hailed as Mt. Rushmore worthy after 9 months in office?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 23, 2009 5:25 PM in reply to again
FDR got liberal Democratic votes because he was a liberal. Obama is a DLC/corporate centrist more interested in getting along with Republicans who despise him than in serving the people's interests. He couldn't be less like FDR if he tried.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 5:42 PM in reply to oleeb
Another stupid ass post from a stupid ass! Read a history book, you dumb fuck! The liberals were pissing and moaning about FDR not being liberal enough when he was in the White House, too!
Why? Because that's what liberals do--piss and moan that nothing is ever good enough.
That Social Security bill was a shadow of what it is today. The liberals were enraged at FDR for not going further--and there were only 17 Republicans in the Senate!
Liberals only like their leaders when they are no longer their leaders. Liberals love Al Gore NOW!! But he wasn't worth a warm bucket of spit when he was running for president.
Liberals praise Jimmy Carter to the high heavens NOW! But they treated him like scum when he was president.
Screw these self-defeating losers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 6:43 PM in reply to FreeRider
Those dastardly liberals were just doing what FDR asked them to do. And for that you call them "whiners."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 23, 2009 10:56 PM in reply to FreeRider
Troll...
and a stupid, ill informed one at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 24, 2009 3:07 PM in reply to oleeb
Insurance shill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:02 PM in reply to FreeRider
Isn't it painful to have to school the whiners. They fall apart at every headline. I am surprised at TPM myself. I left Huffpo a long time ago because of false and misleading headlines just to get you to read. Brian Beutler hasn't been right on much lately.
I will wait to hear it from the Pres' mouth before I go to pieces over this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 23, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yet another stupid comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 3:43 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Locking Volcker in the closet while sending Geithner to Treasury should have been enough to do that for me.
But what's the alternative?
Not sure yet, but anyone who's been following the farcical kabuki of "health care reform" which then became "health insurance reform" and then the disastrous patsy Tim Geithner isn't too surprised by this "revelation."
the "public option" hasn't left Obama's lips for over a week. Not even at a 15K per plate fundraiser in San Francisco.
I switched from kool-aid to tap water. It's healthier.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to again
How do you know. Were you there. Do you have a transcript of his entire fundraiser. I have a lawyer friend and his wife who live in SFO and paid the big bucks to see him and they said the opposite.
Post your source
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 5:38 PM in reply to again
i notice that some people name drop, and some people talk issues. generally the people who name drop (geitner and such) tend to have an exaggerated notion of the good/evil nature of said persons.
i also notice that people who talk issues tend to be a lot more results oriented, and pragmatic, while being less concerned about whose name is on the brass plaque.
i don't particularly like geitner or some of the things he's done in the past. but i'm pretty happy with what the Obama admin has done on financial matters so far and their current pro-regulation policy stance. the worst of TARP was done under Bush. cash for clunkers was/is a good policy to basically deliver stimulus directly to the middle class, while also helping environmental policy. so far the re-regulation of financial markets has been good, and more is yet to come. credit cards and consumer protection is another area where the Obama admin is doing well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Who you going to vote for. A republican. See how well that will work out for you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 23, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to lousgirl84
No, I wouldn't vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 6:14 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
How silly is that. Not voting? Ridiculous
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 23, 2009 8:50 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Really? So even if Obama puts pressure on Congress that results in a bad bill, I should still vote for him?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
October 23, 2009 6:50 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
You say the same shit every single time you read an article like this. Just say you won't vote for him period and be done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 23, 2009 8:48 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Why don't you say that you support any health care plan that passes, even if it destroys the Democratic Party because it forces people to buy insurance that they can't afford?
Are you really that stupid?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dizzy Izzy
October 23, 2009 3:23 PM
This is worrisome. Seriously, WTF? It would be a great stroke of irony if Reid finally found his spine and went against Obama to get a stronger version. Who the hell needs Snowe?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
October 23, 2009 3:23 PM
Why in hell then do they not pressure OLYMPIA?????
Seenm a president campaigning vigorously against her might be a persuader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
October 23, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to davcbr
You could raise Joshua Chamberlain from the dead, convince him to run as a Democrat, and still not leave a dent in Olympia Snowe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 6:48 PM in reply to Former Federal Employee
Do you mean that she is unbeatable in Maine, or that she is unmoveable on the issues?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
October 23, 2009 8:48 PM in reply to slb
Yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
superfly
October 23, 2009 3:24 PM
Um, Brian, are quoting/paraphrasing last night's Politico and/or CNN stories, or is this a new development?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
October 23, 2009 3:25 PM
I hate Obama! The guy thinks just because he won the stupid Nobel Peace Prize that he gets to screw over his own country!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
October 23, 2009 3:25 PM
Rahm Emanuel has to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to rbeats
Folks who didn't vote for the President don't get a vote in who's his chief of staff.
Run along to your Nader meeting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Legion303
October 23, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to FreeRider
Neither does anyone else, troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 5:27 PM in reply to Legion303
actually, yes, people who supported him are his base and do in fact have more influence than Nader supporters and whatnot. i for one am fine with Emanuel. he's politically very sharp, a good adviser, and a good enforcer. he's generally a hell of a lot smarter than his critics.
i've no worries about him overruling Obama who has stated his support for a public option and is proceeding towards that prudently imo, knowing the difficulties and the importance that whatever reform he begins will be improved over time, and therefore it must foremost be politically durable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
October 23, 2009 7:10 PM in reply to Neil
How sharp was Emanuel to twice endorse Rod Blagojevich for governor, pick a public fight with then-DNC Chair Howard Dean over the latter's "50-state strategy", and then get caught on tape talking to Blagojevich about Obama's vacant Senate seat when it was already widely reported that the governor was being targeted by federal prosecutors in a public corruption probe?
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Emanuel's not smart, because he most obviously is. However, I find him to be reckless sometimes to the point of foolhardiness, and he has a vindictive streak in him that's a mile wide. Some people who know him have said that he's mellowed considerably after his public blow-up with Howard Dean; I'd really like to believe that.
I wish I could share your enthusiasm about Rahm-bo, but I just can't. Maybe time and circumstances will gladly prove me wrong, but I predict that before the end of the president's first term, he'll leave his post to spend more time with his family.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 26, 2009 5:34 AM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
Blago is a hilarious sideshow but he doesn't have much to do with anything about healthcare, the environment, jobs, afghanistan, etc. i can't take your opinion seriously if it's based on that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Legion303
October 23, 2009 8:52 PM in reply to Neil
"actually, yes"
Actually, no. Chief of Staff is not an elected position, it's an appointed position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 26, 2009 5:35 AM in reply to Legion303
nobody said the cabinet is elected. obviously the president is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 6:45 PM in reply to Legion303
FreeRider is no troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 6:51 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Then maybe she should stop acting like one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
October 23, 2009 7:32 PM in reply to slb
Funny, but I think that for all her passion, she sounds rather lonely. Then again, one would find it rather difficult to make friends, when one is all too ready and willing to tell others to go fuck themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Legion303
October 23, 2009 10:22 PM in reply to lousgirl84
If it walks like a troll, quacks like a troll, and slings ad hominem attacks around like a troll...it's probably a troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miles
October 23, 2009 3:25 PM
The identity of the source, and his or her ideological inclination, is pretty key. Mike Allen seems to be reporting untruths in hopes of changing the debate, and has been for months now.
If this is true, I will be supporting a primary challenger in 2012 against Obama. That's Obama moving the bill to the right--and breaking his campaign promise--for no reason at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to Miles
Oh please. Who in their right mind would run against Obama? No one, except some green party candidate. If you prefer to waste your vote go ahead, or better still go vote for the thugs, See how wonderful that will work out for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 3:26 PM
Multiple sources? Who exactly?
This tea-leaf reading is beyond ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nobillary
October 23, 2009 3:36 PM in reply to Dorn76
Exactly. I've also had it with the "unnamed sources" and I think Brian's just trying to get us all worked up over nothing. This is a tenuous time in the negotiations and just when we need some encouraging words for a change, he gives us this hokum.
I WON'T believe it unless President Obama SAYS IT!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gavin
October 23, 2009 4:04 PM in reply to Dorn76
at the very least, sources from where? senate sources? white house sources? ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
October 23, 2009 3:27 PM
Do these White House officials have names?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 23, 2009 3:28 PM
Apologist reporting as ordered.
Everytime a report like this has happened over the last several months, the White House knocked it down. Sorry, but this boy has cried "wolf" one time to many for me to buy it out of hand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 3:31 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I think the prudent thing to do, true or not, would be to knowck it down, correct?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
October 23, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The White House doesn't really want their fingerprints on watering this down too much. It's why they went batshit over the Drug Deal. They want ConservaDems, "Moderate Republicans" and the Blue Dogs to do their dirty work. It's a circular game of the White House enabling them, those member of Congress feeling their oats to fight back, and the bill getting chewed up.
It's like Single Payer. The White House didn't want it. But rather than let it be on the table, it was never out there because "it wouldn't have enough votes" while pointing to finger at the Usual Suspects in Congress. Once that was gone, on to the next item to chip away at. Things like cutting deals with Big Pharma, but trying to do it in a way that Baucus was responsible for it... and their praying that Baucus would draw in more GOP'ers to make it look like the Big Pharma deal was a concession to them. That kind of backfired.
Support for the PO is wildly close, to the point that even elements of the Blue Dogs and ConservaDems are having a tough time holding out. So the White House rides to the resque:
* encourage the Blue Dogs to stay firmer on the non-Medicare + 5% House PO
* tell Harry that we need Snowe, and the only way to get Snowe is her Trigger
Next stage?
If Snowe stays in, she provides cover for other things the White House wants rolled back from what might be in the House and/or HELP bills.
I think it's less that Snowe wants to keep her foot in the game to influence it (though she clear does) than the WH wants her in the game to influence it, and provide cover for others going further right.
It's a pretty annoying process all around right now. :)
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 24, 2009 2:15 AM in reply to tosh
hours late (I had to work), you'll probably never see this. but I increasingly I suspect that this is true about the WH thing for Snowe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 3:32 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
But plenty of folks around here are ready to disavow the President and the Democrats at the first hint of a "source" saying something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
October 23, 2009 3:34 PM in reply to Dorn76
Yup.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 23, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Actually, they knocked it down before Brian came out with this latest Tale of Betrayal.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/23/796285/-Jarrett-on-Pres.-Obama:-Hes-committed-to-the-public-option
I just find it difficult to believe that they're so uncoordinated that they're very publicly saying this this morning and doing what the unnamed sources say they're doing on the same day. And experience has taught me to doubt anything that comes out of the mouths of these anonymous staffers because the overwhelming percentage of the time, what they say turns out to be complete bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 23, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
The source Brian indicates is "close to the negotiations between the Senate and the White House," which could mean lots of things, and the source seems to refer to the WH in the third person. Probably means somebody on the Hill, which could put all sorts of opposite leak motives into consideration. But of course, we don't know who this person is who would be providing information to a story 180-degrees at odds with the other data points showing momentum in the other direction. So go figure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Exactly!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 6:57 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Isn't that the way it usually goes when the White House floats trial balloons? Someone close to the president leaks something anonymously to a reporter, and if it goes over well when it's supported, the president takes ownership of it, and if it blows up, they deny knowing anything about it. That's what trial balloons are for--testing out the reaction to certain policy initiatives without having to take the heat for them if they prove untenable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tcdodd
October 23, 2009 3:28 PM
Not at all helpful today of all days to hang a story like this on multiple unnamed sources.
As if there aren't enough of those today.
My brain hurts.
And, I'm sorry if I don't really believe you when you report like this. No better than politico, really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
October 23, 2009 3:30 PM
Yesterday, leading the morning health care news was that "sources" said the House had the 218 votes for the robust public option. Then, today, Politico reported something to the effect that the "robust bill" was dead. There is so much speculation and misinformtion that I would not believe a thing unless the source is Named.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
October 23, 2009 3:31 PM
TPM could show leadership and refuse to publish without names. Who in the WH? Who are the two holdouts in the Senate? What REPS in the House are undecided?
The games are getting serious at this point and the blogs and MSM are being played by leakers w/ agendas?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
October 23, 2009 3:34 PM in reply to Progressive Party
"The games are getting serious at this point and the blogs and MSM are being played by leakers w/ agendas?"
GREAT POST
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 23, 2009 5:44 PM in reply to Progressive Party
TPM is now blaring the headline twice. Once on their front page banner, and twice on their "Top News" feed.
Three times, if you count Josh Marshall's link on his blog. All links come back to the same story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eunice
October 23, 2009 3:32 PM
Can someone post White House contact info? We must be heard!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 23, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to eunice
You know, seems to me that if a body can't find the contact info for the goddamned President of the by God United States all by your lonesome in this brave new age of the World Wide Intertubes and the Google, you really, really don't deserve to be heard.
And if you fire off a demand based on this tenuous fart of a story, you're going to be ignored anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 23, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Gracious! Eloquent as always, but a bit . . .spicy!
That said, I agree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Unnecessarily friendly on my part, I suppose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
October 23, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
To NCSteve:
"... if a body can't find the contact info for the goddamned President of the by God United States all by your lonesome in this brave new age of the World Wide Intertubes and the Google, you really, really don't deserve to be heard."
You are SO funny!!! B I G S M I L E
Are you a professional writer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GregorZap
October 23, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Wake up! Everyone gets to be heard. There are no deserving voices. That's why we have Palin rallies and town halls. The challenge is to be able to listen to what's worth hearing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 4:04 PM in reply to eunice
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to eunice
My goodness. You don't know how to find the WH contact info???? Geesh
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 4:30 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Can you show some basic respect for another person? Or is it just recess for you all the time?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 6:37 PM in reply to Dorn76
Look who's talking IndiePro butt boy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 24, 2009 2:00 AM in reply to lousgirl84
looks who's being negative, the proudly hero worshipping know nothing girl
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 23, 2009 3:34 PM
Oh brother! Let me state up front for the record that if the WH preempts a Senate attempt to rally votes against a filibuster, then it's a monumentally stupid decision--unless there's good evidence that the whip count was going to come up short.
That said, it looks to me that we have conflicting reports (again), hanging on anonymous sources (again), without much insight into the wider context of the negotiations and fundamentally at odds with other things that are in the president's self interest. The pattern is familiar, as is the swift "clarifications" that come from the WH repudiating the reporting. Fortunately today, there are so many items in motion that the next rumor being floated will occupy our attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 23, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to fbacon2
Conflicting reports and anonymous sources. The same ones, no doubt, who supposedly talked of the lunatic liberal fringe.
And people bite, hook, line, and sinker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 23, 2009 4:08 PM in reply to CT Voter
Speaking of biting, Rahm Emanuel bit my cat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 23, 2009 4:18 PM in reply to fbacon2
Your cat has my cat's sympathy.
Is this like that web page for Obama, but in reverse? Instead of "Barack Obama gave me a new bicycle" it's "Rahm Emmanuel bit my cat"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:33 PM in reply to CT Voter
I love your cat??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 23, 2009 4:40 PM in reply to CT Voter
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/25/786212/-Rahm-Emanuel-Bit-My-Cat!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 23, 2009 4:53 PM in reply to fbacon2
And right on cue, DailyKos is front-paging the story from TPM. They are also claiming that "multiple sources" have confirmed the trigger angle, when it looks like Brian's story only has multiple sources confirming the Reid whip count part, and one anonymous BS source for the trigger. Fun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
October 23, 2009 3:36 PM
Are these the same sources that were telling news outlets earlier today that Pres. Obama was pushing the trigger in the meeting last night?
Because all those stories turned out to be completely bogus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cdub
October 23, 2009 3:36 PM
Didn't Valerie Jarret just say this morning that Obama was against the trigger?
Oh my head hurts
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 3:41 PM in reply to cdub
Yes. She did. Every one of these "sources say" stories, regardless of which news org put it out, has been shot down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
October 23, 2009 3:38 PM
If a straight up and down bill with a robust public option can be passed without Olympia Snowe, then do it. The train is leaving the station, she can either get on it, or stay behind and be counted among the obstructionists. It isn't as if she hasn't been included and had plenty of opportunities. The Republicans have chosen to spit in the face of the White House, and the country by extension, after they attempted to work on health insurance reform in a bipartisan manner. The public wants the public option. Either give it to us, or suffer the consequences.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 3:39 PM
Okay... How many of these anonymously sourced stories are we going have to endure? First, the PO is off the table. Then it's on. Then there are the votes for it. Then there aren't.
It's madness! We keep getting anonymous stories like this, only to have them knocked down by principals who are actually directly involved in pulling these bills together.
I not yet seen one of these "sources say" stories that is actually correct.
There seems to be too many moving parts right now -- so many that the people who are directly involved are still trying to gauge exactly where the votes are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 23, 2009 3:40 PM
The front page headline is downright misleading.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
October 23, 2009 3:40 PM
Are they pushing hard for the trigger or are they just saying that they support the trigger but are not pushing hard for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 23, 2009 3:42 PM
I call bullshit. Because I have multiple sources saying you fabricated your multiple sources. So name names as to your sources and their access to legit info and are not fabrications and/or rehashed Politco fabrications.
I expect better reporting from TPM, not rumor-mill, guano deliration based off of Politco's hack nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
It's funny how they can run both stories. Obviously, someone is wrong.
My guess is that this leak is intended to pressure the White House to signal publicly and definitively that it is willing to move forward without Snowe, so that they have the political cover to push forward with these public options proposals.
Jarrett just signaled this morning that the White House still supports the public option, not the trigger. I'm guessing that if anyone knows what's going on, she does, since she's one of the President's closest advisors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 23, 2009 4:08 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Okay, now that's a shrewd guess and the most plausible explanation I've seen in this furball thread.
And if I wanted to do that, I'd look for someone in the blogoworld to leak to who's already heavily invested in the Official Blogosphere Public Option Betrayal Narrative and thus more likely to report it as fact rather than injecting a dose of skepticism into the story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
in this furball thread
it was like an avalanche of comments
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 23, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Kind of makes me nostalgic for the food fights we used to get into here durint the primaries. Sigh. Good times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:23 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
sincerely, I enjoyed many of those days/fights
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 4:43 PM in reply to Indie Pro
This has me reminiscing as well, and as usual, haplessly trying to keep us all under the "big tent".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 23, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
The most interesting thing about the Jarret interview is her corollary to the standard WH boilerplate on the public option. The WH was "open" to other ideas, but then she said we haven't seen any better ideas. A good sign for the PO, I thought.
I also wonder if a strategic leaker couldn't be A) a Baucus-phile trying to scuttle attempts to circumvent him and Snowe; B) a token attempt to bring Snowe on board the opt-out after we tried oh so hard to talk sense into that mad dog Harry Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 23, 2009 6:28 PM in reply to fbacon2
It is option A I'm pretty sure. Ezra Klien is talking about how Baucus pitched a fit last night.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bleacher Creature
October 23, 2009 3:43 PM
Do the multiple sources all work at Politico? This story contradicts everything we've been hearing the last 24 hours, and it just doesn't make sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
October 23, 2009 3:44 PM
My head hurts too.
Yesterday, RIGHT AFTER the Hate Crimes Bill passed, there was a large headline in Huffington Post that un-named sources said Sen. Inouyne was going to strip the Franken Amendment out of the Defense Appropriations bill. I called Inouye's office they were just as baffled as I was.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
October 23, 2009 3:45 PM
"multiple sources" such as from Baucus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
October 23, 2009 3:45 PM
What the heck is going on? Jarrett, this morning said they weren't doing that, now anonymous sources are saying they are? What is going on?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 3:48 PM in reply to calchala
Well, if I you're trying to figure out which source to believe, I would say the say that believing one of the President's "inner circle" advisers is a better bet than believing Mr. or Ms. Anonymity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
October 23, 2009 3:45 PM
Cue the inevitable pushback story in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 3:46 PM
Another point: Apparently, people in the media (and on this comment thread) don't understand the notion of strategic leaking. Many of these leaks aren't factual. [Technically, none of them that have come out so far have been. But, why split hairs?] They are meant to drive the process a certain way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
October 23, 2009 3:50 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Maybe these are strategic leaks to keep firing up the liberal base because the only thing they seem to do is anger people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 4:12 PM in reply to jerryfatheart
Honestly, I think some of them have been aimed at doing just that. It's hard to pass legislation when it seems like no one wants it. For a while, Democrats were relatively silent in all of this.
These leaks, however, are probably aimed at influencing negotiations and providing political cover. It could be that, right now, since the WH has worked with Snowe and considered her an ally, people in the Senate may feel that its more treacherous politically to step out on the public option terra firma, simply because it looks like it's going against the White House. The Senate's move toward the public option would be made easier, in their minds, by having the WH declare definitively and publicly that it does not need to keep Snowe onboard.
Or, this could simply be individuals trying to pressure the White House into definitively and publicly taking the trigger off the table. This would give them cover to pursue the other options.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
October 23, 2009 3:46 PM
Point blank ask someone from the White House instead of these "multiple sources".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
October 23, 2009 3:47 PM
All those "multiple sources" or "close sources" or shouting or leaking or whatever things have already turned me off. We have gone through a rocky road over the last couple of months (it feels like the summer storm of wingnuts parties is a long, long time ago doesn't it?), and nothing in that process has told us for sure what the end product will be like. I will believe it when whatever happens actually happens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 23, 2009 3:49 PM
THE WHITE HOUSE: 202-456-1414
According to you preference express your trust that Obama will fight for a robust public option or your plans if he doesn't.
There are multiple sources for this story and it won't hurt to call and may help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 3:50 PM
Wait a second - think for a moment. Obama hasn't even mentioned the public option for the last week in places where it had strong support.
And it's crunch time for the public option.
I don't know about the multiple sources, and if it's from Politico I'd be suspicious. OTOH, there's little in this report that contradicts what is plain to see from his recent omissions.
The charge of "tea leaf reading" and "crystal ball gazing" is often directed at people who have legitimate questions about Obama's lack of support for the P.O. But given the lack of transparency, it could be ascribed just as easily to those who insist that Obama will somehow - magically - produce.
Like he produced on bank reform during the short window that it was actually possible? (See Simon Johnson's multiple suggestions over the last year.)
Let's assess the situation REALISTICALLY based on past performance, not based on sentiment for the President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
October 23, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to again
Valerie Jarrett, today, stated unequivocally that Obama is committed to the public option.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/23/796285/-Jarrett-on-Pres.-Obama:-Hes-committed-to-the-public-option
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to jerryfatheart
No, sorry. That doesn't matter. She's an actual advisor.
Don't you understand that the ambiguous and anonymous "multiple sources" are the ones who REALLY know what's going on?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rosebowl
October 23, 2009 3:51 PM
My sense is that this is a trial balloon by the White House. Progressives should push back HARD against this. We want a strong public option. Triggers or opt-ins won't cut it. The least we should settle for is Schumer's proposal for a medicare-negotiated national opt-out deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to rosebowl
There have been too many trial balloons and too little real leadership.
I'm not a progressive, but a regular Democrat, from a long line of Democrats.
And I've pushed hard for a strong public option.
This isn't going to alienate just "progressives." This and the failure to deal with the banks has alienated working and middle-class Democrats like myself.
The thing I find most alarming about the passionately defensive posters on this board is that they don't seem to realize that rubberstamping everything the President does is actually very dangerous for his legacy - and our collective future.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 23, 2009 4:02 PM in reply to rosebowl
Here's the problem with that theory, Sparky. The sourcing isn't from the White House, it's from someone on the Congressional side. And, if you put the i.d.'s through your source decoder ring, it looks like staff.
White House trial balloons get floated by people from the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
October 23, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Then it's Baucus. He went "apoplectic" - George Stephanopoulos' words, not mine when he found out Reid was close to the votes. If these are congressional, then it could be from him trying to keep the moderates from falling for this compromise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 23, 2009 4:39 PM in reply to calchala
Another plausible guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 3:52 PM
We've been punked by TPM, because this thread has us debating absolutely nothing of substance.
Just a quickie, since we're imagining things....I totally agree that Olympia should be dropped like a rock. Preserving one GOP vote will not be enough for the Prez to claim "bipartisan" reform. Of course, I don't believe for one second that's what's actually happening here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
October 23, 2009 4:17 PM in reply to Dorn76
But look at all those clicks and unique viewers that TPM is getting off this story!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 23, 2009 3:54 PM
Another installment in the daily unsourced saga of "Now he's for it, now he's against it". Brian, you're being played by people with agendas to try and get their version of the facts out. It's the oldest game in DC and you're falling for it.
Call me when you have something more substantial than the rumor du jour.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
October 23, 2009 3:55 PM
No public option=no mandate.
It sounds like we now know where Obama stands: against the public option. If that is the case -- I am not sure that it is because I don't know if these advisers are offering self-serving comments or factual ones -- I can say that I won't be providing a nickel of my hard-earned work to Obama or to my Senators/Representatives.
This is about a lot more than one GOP vote. This is about making health care more affordable than it currently is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to Mateo123
Exactly.
And it's not about sentiment for the President, or any lack thereof.
It's about patients. Or at least it's SUPPOSED to be.
President Obama has the opportunity to make a strong statement now - but he wouldn't even say the words public option in front of a group of public option-supporting fans of his at a fundraiser in San Francisco last week.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bergman16
October 23, 2009 4:53 PM in reply to again
the absolute best result of this whole effort (for the WH) would be for the bill to have a public option without costing Obama a cent of political capital.
Look at it that way and it all makes sense. Obama understands electoral politics--getting elected was actually the only significant political accomplishment of his career.
Significant accomplishments 2 through 20 are cued up, though. As are horrible political compromises 5-500. If he can get #2 without using up #5, he wins. If not, he uses up one compromise.
Yes, it really is that cut and dried.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
October 23, 2009 3:58 PM
Simple solution, do not vote for any encumbents in the next election. Time for a "real" change we can believe in. I wrote a letter to the white house and told them that if they want our trust two things need doing. 1. Eliminate all lobbying, OR, remove the status from corporations that gives them the same rights as you and I. 2. Do NOT water down the public option. I have explained that if neither is done then Obama's popularity will most likely sink lower than the Incompetant One. Let's see what happens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to hologram5
Oh yeah right. Even the ones who are doing a good job? That would work out great!!!! Please, use some common sense
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
October 23, 2009 3:59 PM
If this is a trial balloon, we gotta shoot it down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
October 23, 2009 4:02 PM in reply to Ethan
Why am it getting visions of Snow's head on ballon boys body?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 7:19 PM in reply to Ethan
Yeah, that's what I think, too -- no matter whose trial balloon it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
October 23, 2009 4:08 PM
Why we give a frak about *1* GOP vote is beyond me. Unless its not true. Unless it is. Cannot wait for this to be over with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
October 23, 2009 4:11 PM
okay, so this blog is rocking. Josh has to love this.
Here is the thing: the House has to push back furiously. They have to point out the insurance companies' commitment, illustrated last weekend when they vigorously fought Baucuscare, to raise premiums. I'm sorry, but telling the insurers they have to insure sick people and telling the insurers they cannot refuse to cover those when they get sick will only raise our premiums.
The answer is a national public option, designed to fight the predatory practices of insurers who, time and again, have proven that they care deeply about profits -- often moreso than about their premium-paying customers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 23, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to Mateo123
Standard pricing, negotiated annually by the gov't. on behalf of all insurers, private and public, for hospitals, doctors' fees, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals would also help with premiums and deductibles.
And risk pooling could help with insurance costs, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 2:02 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
I could go with standard pricing; I believe that is what they have in Maryland. And a commentator in part of a piece on health care reform that I caught on "This American Life" last week was claiming that standard pricing would be more likely than a public insurance plan to control insurance costs. (My question is: even with standard pricing, how to you prevent the insurance companies from gouging customers unless there is meaningful competition among them?)
But do you think nationwide standard pricing is any more likely to pass the Senate than a public insurance option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 23, 2009 4:11 PM
Obama's continued insistence on his naive view of bipartisanship and the approval of Queen, uh, I mean Senator Snowe shows a genuine, ongoing pattern of poor judgment in just about anything involving health insurance reform (which is what he is working on as opposed to healthcare reform). Seems the Yes we can man is only for change if it doesn't mean a whole helluva lot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 4:12 PM
ehh.. i wouldn't make too much of this gossip. with all due respect to TPM, so far the WH and Congress have played their cards pretty close to the chest and most reporting has been false. for example Reich has been repeatedly claiming HCI reform is all but dead.
that said, the value of bipartisanship, even a wee bit of Snowe, is a valid question.
if Dems can pass a truly great HCI reform package assured to be massively popular, then it's fine for Dems to take all the credit. Dems could campaign on it later, keep control of Government, and continue to improve it. but bluedogs have mostly killed that option already.
if on the other hand HCI reform is passed and it has the inevitable problems, shortcomings, and kinks to work out, and passed entirely along party lines, then Republicans can run against it without fear of alienating any Republicans, and potentially retake seats in Congress, and then dismantle and cripple it.
not sure if Snowe alone can deliver enough political viability to reform to be worth any sacrifices. hard to know if she has enough pull with moderate and swing voters. personally i couldn't care less, but i'm in San Francisco.
also hard to say whether a significantly better bill can pass even without her.
opt-out sounds good now, especially in blue states. on the downside, it could create further cognitive dissonance between red and blue states.
a trigger for a stronger public option might actually be good too. especially if the ramp up could begin before the trigger, giving it the same effective start date as a phased in opt-out public option. on the down side, many liberal voters would be dissapointed in the meanwhile.
that's the real question: how much is snowe worth, and which option is actually better and more likely to succeed, technically and politically, in the long term. anybody who says it's simple is kidding themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 6:49 PM in reply to Neil
Just want to say thanks for all the great posting here today Nell. You stay calm, cool, collected and reasonable - while some of us (me included) have gotten pretty hot under the collar and personal.
Thanks again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 26, 2009 5:37 AM in reply to lousgirl84
sure np. thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
October 23, 2009 4:16 PM
Billionaires For Wealthcare crash AHIP Conference today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMuZWSvlIMY&feature=player_embedded#
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 2:06 AM in reply to lapdogs
Now the way to organize a public protest!!
Very clever, and very funny!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 2:09 AM in reply to lapdogs
I saw a typo immediately after pressing the send button that caused part of the sentence to be deleted. The first sentence should have been:
Now that's the way to launch a public protest!
:-(
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
October 23, 2009 4:21 PM
But here's the really important question:
Did any of the sources use the word "spirit" in their statements?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick
October 23, 2009 4:21 PM
Aren't we real tired of anonymous sources using the press to leak "details" about what various players in this drama "really want"? I think it's been clear for about six months that a big part of the strategy of the insurance industry lobbyists has been to demoralize the opposition by planting stories and generally supporting the idea that a public option cannot possibly get enacted into law. We've been told for about six months that Obama is happy to let the option die, in spite of all his public proclamations to the contrary. And the end of the day, we have no idea what's really going on, and the tales spread by anonymous sources are not going to give us any further clue. (Hey - "journalists"! Anonymous sources lie all the time!)
As for the details of the bills, it's clear that the purpose of a "trigger" is to ensure that it never gets triggered. Seems stupid to destroy the entire point of the bill just to please one Republican Senator (who really has no incentive to help the Democrats at all).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
numediaman
October 23, 2009 4:24 PM
First, no one knows for sure what the White House is doing behind the scenes and the story is at least 80% speculation. Second, cut it out . . people get pissed at Obama for hearing any sort of sell-out, then the others get pissed at those who may be prematurely pissed at Obama.
Just a lot of pissing, and it's getting damn wet in here.
If Obama rolls on this just to get one stupid assed Senators vote he is a complete idiot and a total sell-out. But it hasn't happened yet so there is no reason to wet your drawers.
My patience with the President may have ended months ago when he simply could not get himself to get involved with the actual legislation. But I know that if a real health care reform bill with a strong public option passes and gets signed into law, this will go down as one of the greatest accomplishments any modern President has achieved.
As they say, time will tell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 7:27 PM in reply to numediaman
Just a lot of pissing, and it's getting damn wet in here.
LOL!! That it is, bro'!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
edon
October 23, 2009 4:27 PM
For all we've heard about Fox News not being legitimate, everyone seems to accept their definition of bipartisan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BenP
October 23, 2009 4:30 PM
If I had a dollar for every time an anonymous source was justified in this town... well, I could eat at Taco Bell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Theda Skocpol
October 23, 2009 4:31 PM
If Obama eviscerates health reform just for Snowe's vote, he will never get another check from me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:39 PM in reply to Theda Skocpol
Theda, I have read your posts and blogs and you are way too smart to believe that Obama would throw away health reform just for Snowe. And you know he is too smart to do such a thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 4:57 PM in reply to Theda Skocpol
isn't "eviscerating" a little knee-jerky?
there are valid arguments, pro + cons, for a trigger or opt-out. while opt-out sound immeidately pleasing, and a trigger sounds like another delay, and it really depends on the details of either plan.
a strong trigger plan could be great, especially if it ramped up beforehand, to have an equivilent effective starting date as any public option passed now.
or an opt-out could be a disaster if it further polarized the country, increases inter-state bickering and perceived complexity for the public, and the inevitable snafus create a major campaign issue for Republicans and swing voters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 23, 2009 5:17 PM in reply to Theda Skocpol
Theda, what if he eviscerates it for other reasons as he appears to be doing when he isn't insisting on Queen Snowe's endorsement of the bill? The administration has shown far more spirit in insisting upon giveaways to the insurance industry than anything else in the bill. Do you think the whole insurance subsidy scheme is even worth trading for a weak public option that's available to only a tiny sliver of the public? I'd be interested in your option on that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
October 23, 2009 4:33 PM
How disappointing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
October 23, 2009 4:39 PM
I'm sick of Obama and his pathetic, milquetoast, weakling appeasing of the GOP and Snowe in particular. To hell with Snowe and her meaningless vote.
I wish I, and many others, had voted for Hillary. She and Pelosi are the only two Democratic leaders with any balls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 4:42 PM in reply to tommyo
Whine. whine, whine, whine whine. Boo hoo hoo. Look what a lousy job Obama is doing in just 10 months in office. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tragic
October 23, 2009 4:44 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I'm sure he'll always have drones like you to apologize for his lack of leadership.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
juanthecat
October 23, 2009 5:34 PM in reply to tragic
True.
Can´t somebody cancel this Lousgirl-troll´s account or something?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 24, 2009 9:45 AM in reply to juanthecat
Apparently you don't know what a troll is: Let me educate you. Because you just described yourself.
"a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
October 25, 2009 1:58 AM in reply to juanthecat
Lousgirl isn't a troll. She's just a fourteen-year-old who's mistaken a politician for the Jonas Brothers. She'll grow out of it once the adolescent hormones settle down. At least, I hope so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bergman16
October 23, 2009 4:41 PM
I can't stand that anonymous source. That anonymous source ALWAYS gets my goat. Why did Rahm hire that anonymous source, anyway? Not only is that anonymous source wrong ALL THE TIME, he/she is a really bad dresser.
This administration really needs a better class of anonymous source.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KQuark
October 23, 2009 4:51 PM
Face it the source of this is Rahm. The president wants what can be passed and does not have a preference. Democrats in Congress are finally realizing it's their asses on the line in the next election. That's the simple calculus of the situation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
October 23, 2009 4:59 PM in reply to KQuark
It's congressional sources. Not Rahm. Which makes it suspect. There's competing agendas in the Senate right now. No one knows which way it will lead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 6:40 PM in reply to KQuark
Kquark. Good to see you. Remember biglover???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 23, 2009 7:44 PM in reply to KQuark
Note the part where they refer to the White House in the third person. "They" not "we." If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that Rahm Emmanuel doesn't refer to the White House as "them."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
October 23, 2009 4:53 PM
No true public option=No Mandate
No gimmicks or tricks, just a true public option that cuts costs and is available to 'all' Americans.
Either that or just take your mandate and shove it.
You were right about our need to get united Mr President.
You, need to 'unite' with the people...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 23, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to synchronicity
But Synch, that option isn't even on the table. You're aware of that aren't you? The only public options under discussion are the very, very narrow ones that would make the option available only to the unemployed, those whose employers have no insurance and the otherwise uninsured. I'm with you. The only public option that means anything is one that is actually available to any of us so we can choose that instead of the rotten private insurance that's now available.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 23, 2009 5:55 PM in reply to oleeb
True. Here's hoping it would be such a good value product that people started clamoring for its expansion. I guess it could go the other way, too! People resenting the fact they couldn't enroll in it and hoping it would disappear as another 'government program' paid for with 'their taxes'.
There seem to be so many ways to get this wrong and just a few to get it right.
Obama really alienated a lot of people (including me) by not talking up single payer, not educating his constituents on it as a viable option to be considered. Sure, he has all the right opinions, but does it matter if he isn't willing to stand up for them? He might be 'for' a public option behind the scenes, but that doesn't mean he's fighting for it; I think it much more likely he'll accept any legislation at all right now because the risk of nothing is so much greater, from a pr perspective. So that means it's kind of up to Reid and Pelosi and the Progressive caucus to push it through. I hope they get the risk adjusters right, too. That could have a huge effect on the po. Hopefully it doesn't end up a dumping ground for all the sick people without good compensatory funding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 7:33 PM in reply to oleeb
But at least it would be a base that could be built on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 23, 2009 11:00 PM in reply to slb
Don't you see how pathetic that is if we are willing to adopt that attitude? "At least we'll get some crumbs from the table of the king and his court!" It's bullshit that we're being asked to accept a plan that is essentially as rotten as the insurance industry it intends to subsidize with our tax money. And when will this eventuality come to pass "someday"? Ten years from now? Twenty? Will your grandchildren even get glimpse at a decent affordable healthcare system? We've waite long enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 2:28 AM in reply to oleeb
No, I don't think it is pathetic. Sometimes you have to start with a narrow program and build on it. In fact, it could be a better way to do it; I'm a software applications manager, and this is the way I prefer to build and implement computer applications: one piece at the time. Part of the problem with Medicare Part D was that they put it all in place all at once, and when problems cropped up, they ended up being very big problems because they affected a lot of people.
If you start relatively small, then you have a chance to work out the kinks without them turning into massive bureaucratic and public relations nightmares. You see what works and what doesn't, what changes need to be made to make things run smoothly. It could be better politics, too: when you are ready to expand the program, you've already got a built-in constituency for it.
Don't get me wrong; I have been thinking for the last several weeks what a shame it is that everyone seems to have lost sight of what the big push was really for during last year's primaries: universal coverage. Affordability, availability, community pricing, no disqualifications -- all those were just the means to the end of universal coverage, and now they seem to have become ends in themselves, and nothing on the table gets us to universal coverage -- yet. Maybe we just have to build some scaffolding first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 2:35 AM in reply to oleeb
Just to clarify: what would be pathetic would be accepting a reform plan that was so watered down by worry over the price tag that it would never work. As long as the basic plan is sound, I don't have a problem with only opening a public plan option up to a limited subset of people. That is, after all, what we did with Social Security. Not everyone was under it when it was first launched.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Memekiller
October 23, 2009 5:06 PM
I can never decide if Obama is a genius, or Lieberman-level, bipartisan curious. If this is true, I'll finally know.
The Village Stoopid is contagious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 24, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to Memekiller
I'm afraid it's the latter. Don't forget that Obama proudly proclaimed Lieberman his "mentor" in the Senate. He did this long before Lieberman's problems with Ned Lamont. And Obama is so naive that he went to campaign for Lyin Joe in the primary and what did he get in return? Lieberman endorses McCain and speaks on his behalf at the Republican Convention. Pretty naive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tao Jonesing
October 23, 2009 5:08 PM
I have a hard time believing that anybody at the White House is insisting that any bill be watered down so that Obama can point to a token Republican's support of it.
Seriously, would Obama veto a Democrat-only health care reform bill with a public option? I'd really like to see him do it. Heck, I double blue dog dare him to veto such a bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mo lib
October 23, 2009 5:12 PM in reply to Tao Jonesing
Maybe the WH made a backroom deal with the insurance lobby. John Aravosis of americablog says his sources confirm Brian's report.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tao Jonesing
October 23, 2009 5:23 PM in reply to mo lib
Whether or not Obama made a backroom deal with the insurance lobby, his deal does not bind the legislative branch. The Senate and the House have their own roles to play, and the democrats in those bodies better focus on their constituents and the long term health of American citizens and the U.S. economy.
Seriously, Obama isn't going to veto any health care reform bill that lands on his desk, and he certainly won't veto the best HCR bill that can land on his desk-- a Democrat-only HCR bill-- because not one Republican supports it. That would be political suicide.
Obama has no credible threat behind his "push back," if he is, in fact, pushing back. At best he's begging for the Senate to water things down, which also undermines his credibility, particularly when you have a guy like Alan Grayson out there showing liberals what it's like to have a spine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
October 23, 2009 5:10 PM
This leak sounds suspiciously more like Baucus than POTUS.
I'd wait for the president to speak on the record before I'd say he's "gone rogue."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tao Jonesing
October 23, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to Dunvegan
I'm with you Dunvegan, at least with respect to reserving judgment on Obama based on a rumor. I don't think it makes sense to wait to tell your senators and representavies what you think about watering things down for Snowe if they don't have to do so to put a bill on Obama's desk.
Obama's desire for token Republican support is irrelevant. The democrats should get the best bill they can in front of Obama. He'll sign it even without token Republican support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Memekiller
October 23, 2009 5:11 PM
Simple solution: every pro-public option progressive should refuse to vote on healthcare reform without it. Or if Snowe votes for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 23, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to Memekiller
I've always thought the same. There are lots of them and only one of her, thank goodness. But it would take some courageous Senators to vote "no"" on cloture for any bill without a strong public option, and I don't think there's anyone that courageous around. Now if Greyson were in the Senate...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
October 23, 2009 5:11 PM
It's time to let the White House know EXACTLY where we stand on this issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
October 23, 2009 5:14 PM in reply to Maritza
Can't hurt.
These days I have Congress-critters and the WH on Skype speed dial.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Crandell
October 23, 2009 5:16 PM
This is my day off and I'm home here on the ranch outside of Sacramento. And I sit here reading the TPM headline and I literally scream Fuck You! at the photo of O. I grab the bowl full of scraps to take to the compost pile. My head is about to explode and I find myself - wandering aimlessly instead - far down the road holding a bowl of garbage.
Now, this son of Depression era Nebraskans, this Vietnam veteran who walked precincts for Robert Kennedy a year before he landed with the Fourth Infantry in Vietnam and couldn't have voted for him even then, is now going to go and get a form at the post office. I'm leaving the Party.
George W. gave the world O. O. will likely give us a viable third party. And halleluja to that. Fuck You, Obama. Fuck your calculating, savagely dispassionate cynicysm. All that you wanted was, is, is just the power. And I won't shed tears. Not one.
So where are you at now, Caroline? Why don't you stroll on over to Arlington and think on it a while. And feel the rumbling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
October 23, 2009 5:20 PM in reply to John Crandell
Um, maybe back away from the garbage, but by all means, do take a nice relaxing walk.
And give the WH a call when you get back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
October 23, 2009 5:23 PM in reply to John Crandell
It's not so, I think. Valerie Jarrett (senior WH adviser, not some unnamed "source") said he's against the trigger on Morning Joe today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to Ethan
But who are you going to trust?
Jarret or anonymous "unnamed sources"??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to John Crandell
whoa. somebody needs a long walk and a nap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 6:09 PM in reply to John Crandell
A bit reactionary don't you think.
Take a break or a pill or something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Crandell
October 24, 2009 2:11 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Reactionary: you bet I am. With where he's taking us in Afghanistan, more of us ought to be. A narco inlaw for president, a military - only in name, corruption as an ancient way of life and democracy as a foreign idea, O. has decided that we must live their lives for them. At the get-go, Clinton was scared shitless of the Pentagon; this guy is enamored of them. Fucking infamy. And fuck all of you naive shills.
references: Fire in The Lake, A Bright Shining Lie, The Best and The Brightest, Dispatches, Last Reflections on A War, Roots of Involvement, The Betrayal, Mission in Torment, Dirty Work, War of Numbers, 365 Days, Winning Hearts and Minds, The New Face of War, Page after Page, Victory at Any Cost, They Marched into Sunlight, About Face, Vietnam: A History, A Death in November, Sideshow: Nixon, Kissinger and The Destruction of Cambodia, Once Upon A Distant War, Facing The Phoenix, Winners and Losers, The Fall of Saigon, When Heaven and Earth Changed Places, Tears Before The Rain, Home To War, The Lost Crusade, Our Vietnam, The Cat From Hue, Lessons in Disaster, Perils of Dominance, The Making of A Quagmire, Vietnam Witness, JFK and Vietnam, Decent Interlude, A Rumor of War, War Without Heroes, Requiem.
Come on people, register your absence with The Null and Void Trust Company! Wake up! Because you're simply driving (your Prius) into oblivion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 5:24 PM
It was hands-off for as long as the blue dogs and the teabaggers were in the ascendancy, but when the progressives begin to make some headway, then--then--the White House decides to put in its hand to stop things.
This is the sort of thing that drove me crazy about Obama all thruogh the primary season, and it's the reason that I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton until she folded her tent. I appreciate that the man wants to be inclusive and that he doesn't want to run things in the very partisan way they have been done since Newt Gingrich's days in the House. I think that is an admirable quality in him, but at some point I want to see him recognize that there's no gain in trying to be conciliatory to people who are only looking for opportunities to kick you in the nuts.
I think Democrats have more than amply demonstrated that they are working in good faith, and that the Congressional Republicans have more than amply demonstrated that they are not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 5:37 PM in reply to slb
I was always an Obama supporter, and never a Hillary supporter.
I can't agree with you more on this:
"I appreciate that the man wants to be inclusive and that he doesn't want to run things in the very partisan way they have been done since Newt Gingrich's days in the House. I think that is an admirable quality in him, but at some point I want to see him recognize that there's no gain in trying to be conciliatory to people who are only looking for opportunities to kick you in the nuts."
But I'm actually concerned that the Snowe "issue" is just a cover for the fact that he long ago made a deal with the insurers. (As he did with PhRMA.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 7:43 PM in reply to again
And you know, it wasn't that I was so much pro-Hillary Clinton, but dammit, nobody could ever accuse her of not being a fighter. And that's what I really wanted, somebody who would fight hard for the Democratic agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 7:46 PM in reply to again
And good point about the Snowe issue possibly being political cover for backroom deals with Big Pharma.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 5:25 PM
It's possible but it's also possible that Baucus and friends are leaking misinformation for their own reasons. Or somebody else. We just don't know.
That's why I hate this "sources say" bullshit. It's really hard to take anonymous sources seriously.
In an effort to get a scoop, TPM and others give us a daily barrage of garbage that might be true and might not be spin.
Headline should read: "Sources say".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 5:31 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
TPM won't change the headline, because that won't drive as much interest. Most people (except for many here) tend to, with good reason, discredit or view with skepticism a "sources say" story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 5:35 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Nevermind: It's Fri afternoon and I've noticed David Kurtz is on. He's typically harsh and opinionated. So a headline that says defintiely "WH trying to weaken" is David. Anybody else might have written "Sources say" or put a question mark. As noted above, this is absolutely not the WH talking, its congress. Why would anyone in Congress want to blame the WH? Hmmmmmm.
Calls for accuracy are a lost cause with David. I'm sure he has an excuse for never admitting a mistake. Always does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CJ
October 23, 2009 5:31 PM
This is an asinine debate.
How is the opt-out compromise better than a trigger when we know that many red states, already talking about seceding from the union, are likely to opt-out--leaving millions of the poor and disenfranchised behind (anybody who thinks that opt-out legislation would turn red states blue is either ignorant or deluding themselves). Did we work for health care for some in the last two elections or did we work for health care for all?
There's nothing robust about a public option with an opt-out. The debate between a trigger and an opt-out is like a debate between a shit sandwich on wheat and a shit sandwich on rye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GregorZap
October 23, 2009 5:47 PM in reply to CJ
Good point, CJ.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 7:55 PM in reply to CJ
Yeah, I'm not crazy about opt-out either, though I like better the version of it that Rep. Weiner was talking about on MSNBC the other night, where opt-out would only become an option after the public insurance plan (dare I call it "Medicare for All?") had been available for some number of years. That would make it harder for even the reddest of the red states to decide to forego it.
But either way, I'd rather have a public option in place in part of the country, where it can begin to take a foothold, than to have it blocked indefinitely by a trigger that is probably never going to be pulled.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 23, 2009 9:31 PM in reply to CJ
either a trigger or opt-out could be great, entirely depending on the details.
a better analogy would be that yes it's like wheat or rye bread, but what really matters is what's inside.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Swift63
October 23, 2009 5:33 PM
The whole Snowe business has made zero sense all along. Snowe is a dying grape on the GOP vine. We have the votes to do what is morally and politically necessary, and that means, PUBLIC OPTION!
But I do suspect that there's a lot of misinformation being passed. How can I tell? Well, look who "broke" the story in Politico. Mike Allen is a worm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
liberal historian
October 23, 2009 5:40 PM
Remember this whole sordid episode next time a politician uses the words "greater transparency." As you can see here: there is none. Brian B. is just another reporter groping about in a smoky room looking for a ray of fresh air to gulp and share with us...
Given that poll after poll shows the American people want the public option this sort of sneaky behavior on the part of our elected officials is quite shameful. They know where "we the people stand." We don't know where they stand. We have an obligation to be mad as hell about being treated like a mushrooms, fed horse shit, and endlessly spammed to pony up yet more money...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 5:46 PM in reply to liberal historian
"Given that poll after poll shows the American people want the public option this sort of sneaky behavior on the part of our elected officials is quite shameful. They know where "we the people stand." We don't know where they stand. We have an obligation to be mad as hell about being treated like a mushrooms..." "...and endlessly spammed to pony up yet more money..."
And endlessly spammed to pony up yet more money.
Indeed. I can't agree more with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 7:58 PM in reply to liberal historian
I like the way you think!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 5:41 PM
Here's another leak for you: The House bill actually costs $1 trillion, not $871 billion.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091023/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
This is a prime example of how leaks at this point in the process can't be trusted. People are trying to influence, or in the case of this leak (and maybe even this one about the trigger), kill the process.
These leaks should be taken with a grain of salt, particularly since none of them have been true so far.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
October 23, 2009 5:43 PM
Jay Cost is frequently an ass, but this is particularly true:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/10/the_problem_with_the_health_ca.html
Please TPM, don't let being used by anonymous sources with an agenda become your future.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ1
October 23, 2009 5:52 PM
A trigger bill will be a major hit to Democratic electoral prospects for as far as the eye can see. How does forcing Americans into the arms of insurance companies without a way to control premiums help Democrats get reelected. What will the Democratic response be to electoral outrage when this occurs? Are they thinking Americans won't know the difference? Incredible!
The progressive response ought to be that no bill is better than a trigger bill, even if it means defeating a health bill. Blame it on the blue dogs and make the next election about health care. Then the poll numbers will show whether the blue dogs really believe that their constituents wouldn't support a public option.
If that is the Progressive decision, it should also be accompanied by the warning that the health bill will come back, and single payer will be the minimum acceptable bill. Each time these bills come back, the health, drug, hospital, doctor and insurance industries lose a little more ground. Make them pay for not coming to their senses now and accepting the best deal they are going to get - ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 23, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to TJ1
Agreed. But I don't think any Democrats have the courage to defeat this. The WH will move heaven and earth to pass something, anything. My feeling is it's really up to Congress, at this point, regarding the po.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boz
October 23, 2009 5:59 PM
Long time readers and supporters of this site didn't want you to get access to the White House and Congress so you could play the same "anonymous source" game that the rest of the Washington media play. TPM didn't get to this point by trying to be like the mainstream media. Why you're copying them now and playing along with the beltway game is maddening.
I don't care whether this story is true or not (well I do care, but that's another issue). This is TPM's chance to set a new standard for Washington reporting and you're blowing it with pieces like this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 23, 2009 6:08 PM in reply to boz
Well said. I was just thinking the same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 23, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Seconded, and please copy and paste this comment in an email to Josh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to Dorn76
they even reiterated it in a new post. I wonder who the "multiple" sources are for them to continue to push it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 6:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Multiple sources = two friends of David Kurtz who work on capital hill and were told this by Baucus and Conrad aides.
At least according to *my* anonymous sources. LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 6:39 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
I don't know. I've been following Josh since the Clinton days. I trust his reporting and his organizations. If a mea culpa is needed, he'll give it. But I trust TPM much more than many outlets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 6:56 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I like TPM but I've seen cases before where they were sloppy and were unwilling to retract. I get the feeling Josh doesn't want to undermine his editors/reporters with second guessing. He'll side with them if they have some kind of excuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bergman16
October 23, 2009 7:16 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Ditto. The only other angle to contemplate (with completely untwisted panties and lack of colored lenses) is that Josh might not appreciate being a conduit for certain kinds of leaks and would mea culpa on that. In other words, Brian had his info from reliable sources but it was still a weekend fart balloon to see what shakes out.
Plenty of Politico readers to take on that kind of hysteria, don't need TPM for that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
October 23, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to boz
+1 and very well said. I would send your comment to Josh, the last time we had this sort of rumor posting, he posted a comment from a reader that basically called them out on it and it received over 100 recommendations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 6:31 PM in reply to Philv
I'd give it a rec. The anonymous sources thing is abused to much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
October 23, 2009 6:29 PM
i`m sorry. i dont believe this. i mean, i dont think the sources have the story straight.
all these sources have kept saying that Obama doesnt want the public option, while all the people that matter, axelrod, rahm, jarret, etc and Obama himself have kept saying Obama wants the public option.
I choose to believe the story from the horses`mouth
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tlees2
October 23, 2009 6:29 PM
Appalling!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Crandell
October 23, 2009 6:34 PM
When it finally came down to the final line, back in late 2004 and early 2005, it was Josh and his TPM that was mainly responsible for the rallying the troops to beat back W. and the Republican attempt to destroy Social Security. That, in the horrid aftermath of Kerry's defeat.
Now that he has much more to lose, is Josh willing to step up and spark a rally once more?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 6:44 PM in reply to John Crandell
Rally the troops all you want.
But you can't just let anonymous sources make stuff up. What if this is basically some Senators who want to kill the PO trying to torpedo it and blame it on the WH? Seems just as plausible as the WH being the villain. I for one have never heard Conrad, Baucus, Lincoln & friends say ANYTHING positive about the PO, while WH folks have numerous times.
I think there needs to be a difference between a site like TPM and a site like the Politico. That's just me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mo lib
October 23, 2009 6:34 PM
Check this out!
http://tinyurl.com/yjy6hko
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
October 23, 2009 6:52 PM
Barack Obama needs to grow a pair of balls. Maybe it's me, but i didn't vote for Olympia Snowe last fall did i?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
October 23, 2009 6:57 PM
You guys have to treat political news the way I treat celebrity gossip/news: Do not make judgments until you hear it from the horses mouth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
October 23, 2009 6:57 PM
It's as Rep. Grayson said: we didn't elect Sen. Snowe last November, we elected Obama. Time to show some guts, sir.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marklouis
October 23, 2009 6:58 PM
I guess the fact that both Valerie Jarrett and Bill Burton said today that the President supports the public optin means nothing? Of course, we should believe un-named sources and hearsay! They certainly know more than those who work directly with the President every day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DurianJoe
October 23, 2009 7:01 PM
Is anybody else feeling buyer's remorse?
Whatever is causing President Obama to turn himself into a pretzel for the sake of Olympia Snowe, his obsession with "bipartisanship" is hurting the country.
Hillary 2012? If not how about, anyone but Obama?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 23, 2009 8:06 PM in reply to DurianJoe
Is anybody else feeling buyer's remorse?
Umm, no -- whatever the truth of this story proves to be. Maybe that's because I was never a hook, line, and sinker supporter; I voted for Obama in the general in spite of the fact that I had reservations about how hard he would really push for a progressive agenda. He was the best candidate on the list then, and I still think he was the best candidate on the list. If he's reluctant to push the progressive agenda, then progressives just need to push him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tlees2
October 23, 2009 8:12 PM in reply to slb
Amen!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DurianJoe
October 23, 2009 8:17 PM in reply to slb
You and me both. I was never that enthusiastic about Obama. I thought Clinton would be the more liberal and tougher President ("liberal" being relative; I was for Kucinich), but I thought that Obama would have a better chance of beating McCain, and that was paramount to me.
As for pushing Obama and the Democrats to be more progressive: please tell me how that will be accomplished.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bergman16
October 23, 2009 8:24 PM in reply to DurianJoe
Letters, calls and money. Letters, calls and money. (maybe, very rarely, marching or demonstrating).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 24, 2009 2:15 AM in reply to bergman16
I have heard written letters are more effective than e-mail and phone calls, too. Don't know if that's true, just passing it on and would be interested to hear a reliable confirmation/denial.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 2:48 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
I suspect that having the phones ringing off the wall makes a pretty definite impression, too.
I'm not sure whether e-mail gets as much response as a letter or not, but at one time getting letters through in the wake of the anthrax scares could take quite a bit of time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bergman16
October 23, 2009 8:21 PM in reply to slb
It's much easier to whine than pick up the phone. I would have LOVED it if a progressive would have won the White House. But Obama won, and he needs to feel a constant pressure from the left in the form of feedback. Constant. Not whining, though. He's already got 2 children.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 10:40 PM in reply to bergman16
The left would be giving constant pressure to *anyone* in the WH. It's just their nature -- contentious, fractious, undisciplined. Not enough, not fast enough, .... if we get this health care bill passed, no matter how good, with PO and all .... get ready to hear your neighborhood lefty tell you how *they* were always for single payer. I guess it's nice to have idealists left in the world but sometimes its a wonder we Dems get anything done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DurianJoe
October 24, 2009 10:06 AM in reply to bergman16
Whine? Get off it, pal. I've written letters -- real letters, not emails -- to Obama and Reid and Pelosi and the DNC and both my Senators and my Representative; I've also written letters to the editor.
Phone calls are fine, but they don't require much effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bergman16
October 24, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to DurianJoe
I'm a bit confused. It sounds like you're genuinely asking what progressives can do, yet you do those things already. Like you, I voted for Obama not as a true believer, so I don't get the 'buyer's remorse' thing. It seems like an overstatement of the simple chagrin that accompanies voting for a real person rather than an ideal who doesn't get the nomination. In other words, every election I've taken part in.
I overuse the term 'whining,' and am not careful enough in my replies, so apologies for that. From what little I know of you, you're an effective pressure point from the left, and shouldn't feel any remorse of any kind. So many folks who are reacting on day-to-day leaks don't ever bother to do what you do, so my comment was directed to them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DurianJoe
October 24, 2009 1:42 PM in reply to bergman16
Apology accepted, and I thank you for your graciousness.
I am almost at the point where I am skeptical of all but the most tried and true politicians listening to the will of the average person. This might be a result of 8 years of Bush, particularly the fact that he launched the Iraq War in the face of massive, worldwide demonstrations, and the complicity of a mainstream media that I still find untrustworthy.
What can I say? I believe in being a active citizen of this democracy, but I question whether we even live in a democracy and not a plutocracy owned and controlled by immensely wealthy individuals. Watching Goldman Sachs and their ilk rake in record profits and huge bonuses while many Americans are scrambling simply to have a roof over their heads is almost enough to quash any illusions that the wealthy have achieved effective control of our government and, therefore, us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DurianJoe
October 24, 2009 1:45 PM in reply to DurianJoe
Correction: "...quash any illusions that the wealthy have NOT achieved effective control of our government and, therefore, us."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
October 23, 2009 7:09 PM
If this is true......I won't vote for Barack Obama again in 2012. I won't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 8:10 PM in reply to theone718
"the one" = wasnt that a McCain ad?
Sound liek a GOP, or a Naderite. Which ever it is, your a rat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AaronBBrown
October 23, 2009 7:10 PM
If there is an opt out, the states that most need a public option, the South and the rust belt, states with the most Republican influence, will be the ones opting out.
I see the sour grapes bought and paid for Hillary supporters, are pushing their bought and paid for propaganda here at TPM, I wonder how much the Clintons and corporate America are paying them these days to try and undermine the only authentic representative any of this generation have seen in their lifetime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CF2K
October 23, 2009 7:23 PM in reply to AaronBBrown
Well, I voted EDWARDS in the Kansas Primary, and it seems to me that Barack Obama doesn't need anybody's help in "undermining" himself. What he needs to do is come out strong and unambiguously for the public option. Let him do that, and give up courting "moderates" who will backstab him every chance he gets.
And as Kansas vote, I'm FINE with opt-out, if that'll get the thing passed. Let the Republican hacks in the Kansas Legislature try to opt out and sign their own political death warrants.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Karl the Marxist
October 23, 2009 7:28 PM
Man, the only thing funnier than this post are the commenters who went in hook, line and sinker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marklouis
October 23, 2009 7:46 PM
By the way, the White House just denied your story to Marc Ambinder @ The Atlantic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bergman16
October 23, 2009 8:12 PM in reply to marklouis
Yep. "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."
Unbunch panties.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 8:19 PM in reply to bergman16
And gosh, Ambinder actually quoted real named people. Not the usual Politico-style anonymous axe grinder/spinmeister.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FPElitist
October 23, 2009 8:32 PM in reply to bergman16
Ok, that makes more sense, thank you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mo lib
October 23, 2009 9:43 PM in reply to marklouis
And, you believe the WH, why??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 10:33 PM in reply to mo lib
Any you believe no names?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mo lib
October 24, 2009 2:42 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
If the WH is behind this, no one is going to go on the record. Do we just go ahead and take them at face value, all the while they are screwing us? Jane Hamsher has reported for quite some time that a trigger is what Rahm and the WH wants. She has proved she knows the inside baseball. I am not going to put blind faith in Obama, given his track record so far in going back on his promises.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 23, 2009 8:18 PM
Please!! Its the SENATE!!!!! Beating up Obama will do NOTHING.
This leak is a leak that is designed to play us, ON PURPOSE!!!! To get our focus off Reid and the Senate.
To provide cover for Reid and moderate Dems in the SENATE!!!
Continue beating up the SENATE for a robust PO!!! Or something like it.
Its ALWAYS BEEN the SENATE!!!
THAT is where the fight is and really always has been.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FPElitist
October 23, 2009 8:30 PM
This leak stinks to high heaven. It came from politico. I wouldn't be surprised if Baucus is behind it.
Hey TPM come clean with these "multiple sources" dude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mo lib
October 23, 2009 9:41 PM in reply to FPElitist
Umm, no. This wasn't a leak. It was from Brian Beutler's sources. Much different from Politico. TPM has a great track record. Therefore, I am more inclined to trust them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 10:32 PM in reply to mo lib
I'm sorry but "trust us" is not a part of democracy.
Regular news orgs have policies on using anonymous sources as little as possible. That's for a reason -- they are abused.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mo lib
October 23, 2009 11:18 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
If there was nothing to the reports that the WH was still pushing "triggers" then why did Sen Rockefeller come out with a statement today that triggers don't work and he doesn't support that approach. He felt the reports had enough merit to warrant a response.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 11:47 PM in reply to mo lib
The simpler answer is that Reid & company are entertaining it or our "moderate" friends like Conrad, Lincoln and Snowe are pushing for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JoeTheMechanic
October 23, 2009 9:21 PM
This is GREAT!
It's not just TPM that is debating whether or not there will be a public option, even the MSM is debating it. In fact, the MSM is even talking about what the public option is!
Only a few months ago, the mainstream media was obsessed with town hall nuts and death panels.
We've come a long way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 24, 2009 2:21 AM in reply to JoeTheMechanic
True that. I needed some good news.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
des
October 23, 2009 9:22 PM
I haven't the time (or stomach) to read all the postings, but I did want to leave this note:
President Obama is NOT the legislative body! He cannot TELL Congress what to pass or not to pass! Many here seem to forget that. The first time the President tries to do so will possibly be the last.
Personally, I have little doubt that the discussions at the WH included the question: "What can we do to keep Snowe on board?", it would only be natural. The real question is: What is the WH position on HCR and I think that is fairly obvious, if somewhat boring and lacking in newsworthy conflict: the WH wants a public option or any format that provides the same benefits as said public option.
Washington D.C. is full of oversized egos; viz, those "unnamed" sources who just have to go running to the press to show how important they really are. 'Course, if my job was being a gofer, maybe I'd be doing the same thing. I do know that if I have to take a choice between a sourced denial (see above) and an un-sourced rumor (also see above), for the present I'm going with the denial.
I know it isn't nearly as exciting, but it saves a lot of wear and tear on the nervous system; not to mention a awful lot of useless bickering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 3:02 AM in reply to des
President Obama is NOT the legislative body! He cannot TELL Congress what to pass or not to pass!
That's true; but how many of the more conservative Democrats that Pelosi and Reid are trying to win over are going to stick their necks out and vote for something that the president is not 100% behind? It's not that he's telling them how to vote, but if Obama is wavering on a robust public option, it makes it just about impossible to get wavering members of Congress to go along with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Middleclassvotingbloc
October 23, 2009 10:01 PM
Mr. President, a watered down version of the Public Option will insure the Democratic Party's defeat--I am sure the Republican party will love it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Middleclassvotingbloc
October 23, 2009 10:05 PM
I really don't believe that President Obama will settle for a watered down version just to get Snow on board--I think it is all a ploy so that the President can claim that he tried to the end to get a bi-patisian bill. President Obama, I think, his tricks up his sleeves that he has not even used yet. He is a very strong and smart man. Don't forget this is the same man that beat two of the greatest political machines ever, the Republican party and Hillery. He is the same man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
October 23, 2009 11:44 PM in reply to Middleclassvotingbloc
I hope you're right; though campaigning is very different from governing. Compromise is certainly necessary for any good President to govern all of the people, but so far Mr. Obama's willingness to bow to corporate interests concerns me. I believe the outcome of this health care reform battle will tell us how strong - and how effective - he is going to be at governing. And whether or not the American middle class survives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 23, 2009 11:42 PM
Reminds me of how TPM taken in by the CIA in their smear campaigns of Harmon and Pelosi. TPM's instinct? Breathlessly report whatever the "sources" claim as fact, then later clean up the mess. The motives of the leakers never occurred to them apparently (the CIA lie?), although it did to many of us skeptics.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/hoekstra_spokesman_docs_will_show_pelosi_was_brief.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/record_suggests_pelosi_did_little_in_response_to_tort.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
October 23, 2009 11:55 PM
If Opt-out will make the PO fly, then we should go for it. Any state that wants to turn its citizens over to the tender mercies of the unchallenged insurance companies should be welcome to -- and face angry voters in the next election. Of course, there has to be a mechanism so that Red-Staters who have ignorantly opted out can't show up in California looking for better/cheaper health care from the government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 24, 2009 12:20 AM
There are so many unknowns in this one:
I doubt:
1) If TPM is honest, and just trying to get some much needed traffic
2) If the so called sources are junior staff and pages for the senators, or even lower
3) If progressive or blue dogs using the media (tpm) to make some impact on the final outcome, force WH to take a stand or put the blame somewhere else...so on...
If this story manages to pass through all those if tests, and its a big "IF", then I can just say "Shame on you, Obama" Its one thing to remain agnostic but it is another thing to willfully work against the hard work of his core base and against the will of those who elected him.
h
In all, despite the TPM sources, I'm where I was all along: I or any one else here don't know much about the WH intentions, and all of use are speculating- we are leaping a lot of "IFs" in reaching our conclusions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 24, 2009 9:49 AM in reply to kash79
Great post Kash79
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Crandell
October 24, 2009 12:58 AM
Mudcat Saunders: "The Democrats right now are a real bruised brand right now where I am," Saunders said in a phone interview from his home near Roanoke. "There was so much energy put into last year's race, everybody's just burned out. You can't get anybody fired up."
Not too hard to understand why, huh folks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
October 24, 2009 1:41 AM
Without a robust public option, there’ll be no real reform - yes, the insurance industry will have lots of new 'mandated customers' and the industry likes that (but American citizens won't , because they’ll have no choice and guess who did it to them? THE DEMOCRATS!) and, yes, the insurance industry will have lots and lots of lobbyists (last count 6:1, six health insurance industry lobbyist for each congressman or woman) to manipulate future the federal rules for the benefit of the insurance industry profits and to the detriment of American citizens pocket books and health (and guess who did it to them? the DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS), but, that's pseudo-change, change you scoff at, not 'Change You Can Believe In'. The primary consideration for Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats should be the effect of the reform on American citizens - and for American citizens to have a choice, there must be a robust public option. After all this agony, publicity, visibility – and with the very real consequences for American citizens - Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats cannot risk screwing the public with pretend Health Care Reform. While I appreciate all the commentary on 'other viable options', it’s simply the case, that there will not be real Health Care Reform benefiting American citizens without a robust public option. The sooner these folks understand what the American public already understands, the sooner they can move forward to benefit American citizens, i.e. Health Care Reform with a robust public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 24, 2009 2:31 AM in reply to bill
You realize that what's being referred to as 'robust' up to now isn't open to all Americans. It would only be available to the uninsured and maybe those who aren't covered by their employers. 'Change we can believe in'? Pretty tame by any measure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 3:10 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
To be fair, that's pretty much all his plan promised from the beginning. But it would be a start, and having something in place that could be built on is a heck of a lot better than having nothing at all.
The key is making it something that could be built on. If it's weak from the start, it's not going to make for much of a foundation for a larger structure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 25, 2009 5:57 PM in reply to slb
Here's hoping...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
October 24, 2009 1:42 AM
Just like the stimulus bill, the Democrats and Obama can't scapegoat Olympia Snowe and few Repubs or Blue Wongs for the failures and short-comings of the Health Care Reform bill. Health Care Reform, like the stimulus, will have huge blue letters emblazoned on the side exclaiming DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATION ! As a part of Health Care Reform, the public expects a strong public option, a public option that serves as a viable and valued option to the current private-sector for-profit full-fledged money-machines that do not deliver health care or even have health care delivery as their primary objective.
But sounds like Obama is getting cold feet.
Even the conservative Economist magazine sees the situation - and so do voters. For example: “By 2019, 25,000,000 people are expected to remain uninsured [under the Senate Plan].”
Both the conservatives and the voters are aware of the situation and its possible outcome. The Economist says: “Mr Obama and his Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill are in grave danger of throwing away a rare chance.”
And the title of the Oct 17 2009 article reiterates the point: “Barack Obama’s Reforms Should Avoid Squandering a Rare Opportunity, But Probably Won’t”.
From a voter's point of view, if the Democrats squander their opportunity, it will cost them the coming election, not for being ‘too bold’, but for frittering away their majorities and Presidency on a half-*ssed bill.
As the Economist cautions, if the public opens the bill and finds it largely empty, it will be a disaster for the Democrats, Obama and American citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 24, 2009 2:40 AM in reply to bill
It's a pity more attention isn't being paid to insurance regulation (structuring and enforcing risk pools and compensation based on risk assessment, a basic minimum health care package all insurers are required to offer) and cost control in the form of standard and transparent prices for hospital and medical services, equipment and medicine negotiated by the government on behalf of all insurers, public and private. Throw in Wyden's amendment, you'd have a much greater shot at keeping insurance affordable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
October 24, 2009 1:43 AM
Why would anyone want to spend $100 dollars on a private-sector for-profit health insurance policy and have $20 to $30 go to the insurer, leaving as little as $70-80 of the original $100 for the folks who are going to provide health care, i.e. doctors, pharmacies and hospitals? The obvious answer is 'no one', and that's why the 'controversial public option' was never 'controversial' with 'the public', and was always and still is the preferred model for 'the public', if not the politicians. It was only the private-sector for-profit insurers who promoted the public option ‘controversial’, and that's because they feared the loss of a captive 'market' ( a pseudo-market created by anti-trust exemptions made by the government). If there’s a ’true ‘controversy’ around health insurance, it's arises from ‘the public’s’ years and years of real-world experience with private-sector for-profit health insurance companies denying coverage, resending coverage, banking profits without improving services, paying huge ‘bonuses’ to staff and CEOs for denying and resending coverage and for limiting treatments. In addition, 'the pubic' knows the ‘death panel’ stories are based on real-life incidents and caused by the private-sector for-profit insurance industry (not ‘the government’s) denial of life-saving care to policyholders. The ‘public option’ was never ‘controversial’ to ‘the public’ , but was made to appear so by for-profit private-sector health insurers and their bogus ‘Tea Baggers’ led by billionaire Malcolm Forbes and his stooge Dick Armey whipped up some non-sense made-for-cable visuals. For ‘the public’, the ‘public option’ was always and remains today the sine quo non of health reform, because the private-sector for-profit health insurance industry has made a hash of it, feathered its own nest, and screwed 'the public'. And – not surprisingly - more than Enron, Citigroup, AIG, Health South, Health Frist (or First or what ever), 'the public' trusts the government over the private sector to deliver health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JustAChicagoVoter
October 24, 2009 5:54 AM
If this report is true, I AM PISSED.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
October 24, 2009 7:54 AM in reply to JustAChicagoVoter
According to the White House, it's not:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/10/white_house_denies_report_that_it_wants_to_weaken_public_plan.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
October 24, 2009 10:28 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
LOL! Well, what did you EXPECT them to say? "White House Confirms it is Working to Undermine the Choice of the People?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
October 24, 2009 10:46 AM
There will be a public option, and not just the Democrats, but the Republicans will be smoked out by it, and, yes, even Obama is going to be revealed as something - Heavens, let's hope it's as an advocate for American citizens rather than the Health Care Industry. If Obama takes the lead on the public option, some Republicans will join Democrats and vote for the Public Option; 'the lead':"I said I would not close my mind to alternatives that achieved the goals of reform, but in all the months that have passed and all the rhetoric that has been wound, the public option remains the best choice to achieve the health care goals American's want and deserve. All polls reflect that when Americans understand the options, they overwhelmingly support a Public Option. I am the President, and I support their view."). Several Republicans cannot vote to maintain the diversion of 20-30% of the health care dollars to insurance industry overhead & profits and away from health care - they will be exposed; many Republicans cannot vote for the health insurance industry that would require individuals to buy insurance from a company that routinely denies coverage, increases premiums, raises 'co-pays' and diminishes coverage - they will be exposed (let's face it, for some Republicans, it's okay to mandate people to buy private sector health insurance, as long as you don’t mandate private sector insurers to provide health care); and many Republicans cannot vote to maintain the most costly health care system in the industrialized world while hundreds of thousands are refused coverage and millions more have their claims denied - whether a lie or a ruse, simple ignorance or brainwashing, the truth just keeps coming out. Bottomline: If Obama leads, some Republicans will not vote lock-step with other Republicans. But Obama must get out in front and lead or be forever ('forever' means the next 39 months) be viewed as damaged goods. Obama began the debate, now let us hope he has the leadership skills (yes) and the guts (the jury's out) to end the debate in favor of the American people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
out of the loop
October 24, 2009 11:39 AM
Obama seems bent on going down in history as the President who dithered while the country burned. Why didn't the Democrats simply nominate and vote for Snowe for President?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 24, 2009 12:48 PM in reply to out of the loop
He "Dithered"....Borrowing phrases from Dick Cheney. Compelling stuff, really, keep up the good work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 24, 2009 11:46 AM
Is this a leak intended to 1) force the WH to take a stronger position or 2) kill the sense of momentum for the PO. In short, are the sources trying to make excuses for blue dog Senators who dont want a vote on the PO, but want to pass blame around, or is it by a supporter of the PO pissed at the WH?
TPM punts on these big crucial questions. That's why some of us are pissed. A critical stance of the sources motives is the difference between being journalism and just being a tool of sneaks and spinmeisters. (see: Politico.com)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Switzer
October 24, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
This is the second article I have read at TPM today that suggests failure of will at the WH. First is was opposition to a Franken amendment to protect workers at Defense contractors. That one appears to be false. Now a leaker says the WH is caving on the public option to keep Snowe happy. The use of anonymous sources is the scourge of the news business. Without more information on the source, there is no way to judge the validity of the claim. TPM and all media do the reader a disservice to repeat this stuff without some basis for judging its validity
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
October 24, 2009 1:18 PM
Can anyone explain to me what the "CRISIS" is with health care? Why is it so crucial to have a public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stop7997
October 24, 2009 6:49 PM in reply to Odel Roo
Here's my take: Without a public option, everyone is legally mandated to buy health insurance from a profit-driven insurance company. In effect, taxpayers will be subsidizing executive compensation (including bonsues) and shareholder dividends. With taxpayers forced to buy insurance, insurance companies will have us over a barrel: expect a sharp rise in insurance premiums. A public option would give taxpayers the option of buying a government-run health plan like medicare with -- presumably -- lower premiums.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
October 25, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to stop7997
Doesn't the mandate state any one of the insurance options? My problem is that it is forced... Is everyone ok with this? I mean it will be nice to have an affordable option, but forced to buy insurance seems a little over the top. I would hate to see anyone go to jail for not having health insurance. Seems surreal to me.
But i really don't understand the CRISIS of this... I mean they are willing to put us all into debt up to 2 trillion for affordable insurance? I'm just trying to figure out what is really the cause of why health care and insurance is so expensive and it seems like were not treating the cause just prescribing meds to ease the pain... meanwhile the problem continues to decay and get even worse.
Seems to me that the insurance system is the problem as a whole but now we are just going to add another player to the broken system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
October 24, 2009 10:17 PM in reply to Odel Roo
The "CRISIS" is that the large health care insurers, just like the large financial institutions, have eliminated their competition to such an extent they now constitute a cartel and wield nearly monopolistic market control.
Just like the large financial institutions, they are thus "too big to fail." Witness their recent threat to raise premiums to exorbitant levels if health care reform passes.
It is fundamental that capitalism ceases to function correctly if there is not sufficient competition to keep the market operating openly and honestly. That is the basis for our strong tradition of antitrust law -- considered so fundamental that comprehensive antitrust statutory schemes exist at both the federal level, and the state level of all states. Without sufficient competition, capitalism degenerates into "cartelism" and cronyism.
The astounding thing is that today the people who scream "free market" and "capitalism" the loudest, the so-called "conservatives," are the first to close their eyes to or fail to discern a lack of competition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
October 25, 2009 1:31 PM in reply to RKT
That is a insightful view RKT... here are a few things I was thinking about in reference to what you touched on. I'm sure that auto insurance is most likely similar in structure to Health Insurance companies. Having a greater pool of people in a plan should reduce overall risk and to the insurer and as such a lower cost to the insured. Why can auto insurers cross state line to increase pool number but not with health insurance?
As a self employed person and always having to get my own insurance i always search out Associations or Groups I could join just to get cheaper insurance because more people were in the plan. Seems to me if they opened the stats it just may reduce costs in the short term.
i'm not sure there would be a valid argument that this would spur competition. I mean private vs gov plans are apple and oranges. It would be like Walmart moving into new markets... the others will be forced out because they can't compete.
Another aspect as the other commenter touched on is shareholders. So much money is tied to healthcare investments. Pensions, mutual funds, retirement accounts, 401k's etc. What would happen to those investments when these companies begin to fade away?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
October 24, 2009 1:33 PM
Wow... someone mentioned in another post that this site was desperate for visitors... i guess she was right, this place is like a ghost town... cricket ... cricket .... cricket. Anyone know of an active kinda left leaning blog?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boredwell
October 24, 2009 2:31 PM
"Trigger" was the name of Roy Rodger's horse on the 50's TV show.
As the name for a disingenuous "health" plan, "trigger" is ironical: doom is too often the result when it's pulled.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MiamiGuy
October 24, 2009 2:42 PM
TPM really messed up on this one! As others remarked, you pick up the phone and call the White House. It turns out you don't have a story at all. Meanwhile, here you've spread false information to thousands of readers. You really need to apologize and remove the story from the site, not just update it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
October 24, 2009 3:53 PM
Poor Indie Pro - having to joist with shut-ins, hero worshipers, and hysterical, I mean high maintenance women, the kind where you would actually cross the street to avoid, even Queens Blvd on a Sat afternoon. You might consider getting a restraining order against lousgirl12. and Answer F, remember, take yr meds daily.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 24, 2009 10:38 PM in reply to Cornelius
Is that you? Nice sock puppetry :-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stop7997
October 24, 2009 4:41 PM
If Rahm Emanuel has his hands in this, you can bet that whatever health care bill is passed will be a HUGE gift to the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
October 24, 2009 5:19 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?
Josh Marshall
October 24, 2009 6:37 PM
I'm always struck by how many people don't like anonymous sources when the content of the story is not to their liking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Crandell
October 24, 2009 7:14 PM in reply to Josh Marshall
:-)))))
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 24, 2009 10:54 PM in reply to Josh Marshall
Let me be clear -- I don't like them if there's a strong possibility that someone is making mischief. Understandable concern, no? We don't like to be spun or lied to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Josh Marshall
October 25, 2009 12:38 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
absolutely an understandable concern. and i would never say that you should take what you hear reported from anon sources as gospel. it is largely an issue of trust -- in the publication and reporter. any publication can find a quote from someone who's just talking out of their ass and say a source said this. obviously that wouldn't be ethical or good journalism. when a reporter/pub says that sources are saying X, it is implied that these are CREDIBLE SOURCES IN A POSITION TO KNOW. and the reporters believe they do know. i would never say anyone should have blind trust in any reporter or publication. but in the hands of an experience and ethical journalist and editor, they're often invaluable. person X knows certain information but they're unwilling to come forward publicly. but they're willing speak to a journalist. and that journalist has looked at the matter and decided the person is credible and in a position to know the information at hand. If all goes right, that journalist plays a critical role in surfacing publicly-important information. If all goes well being the key part of the sentence.
often a source WILL have an axe to grind or some motive in releasing the information. and the rpeorter/editor has to make a judgment about how much that affects the credibility of the factual statements alleged. often that will mean getting confirmation from other sources, confirming the claims in another way. there are no end of permutations.
a lot of this comes down to the same basic thing: reporters have rules and systems they follow to verify what they're told and a good reporter uses them. the issue is less the use of anon sources than the track record of the publication and the reporter.
my point is simply that a knee-jerk opposition to the use of anon sources in general is just a recipe for the public getting little or no information at all and being forced to rely on press spokesperson's statements which are at best incomplete and self-serving and often simply false.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 25, 2009 12:21 PM in reply to Josh Marshall
You have a point. The abuse of the technique has made some of us very skeptical of the practice, but in some cases it might be the only way to find out what's going on. Thanks for the clarification.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
October 24, 2009 9:56 PM
Can anyone please explain to me what Obama stands for? Or whose side he's on -- on ANY issue? I worked on the guy's campaign, and from where I stand he's failed to take any measures to bring the financial industry under control, taken the Cheney side of every Constitutional and individual rights issue that arose since he took office, and worked behind the scenes to undermine a public health care option. This is not the president I helped elect.
He gives a hell of a speech, though!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 3:30 AM in reply to RKT
I'm not sure just where you are standing, but perhaps you had better look for a different vantage point, because it seems to me that your current one is giving you a distorted perspective.
I'm not saying that Obama is not deserving of some criticism, but to make it so absolute: to say that he hasn't taken ANY measures regarding the financial industry, that he has taken Cheney's side of EVERY Constitutional/rights issue, etc. -- such hyperbolic statements are not warranted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
October 25, 2009 6:34 PM in reply to slb
I agree; I do not know quite where these extreme condemnations of the president are coming from; perhaps agents provocateurs from the 'other side'?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Crandell
October 25, 2009 12:40 AM
My neighbor says that Obama makes him think of the movie titled The Manchurian Candidate. Not having seen that flick, I'm not up on that. But like Gore Vidal, I feel we've made a mistake, that Hillary just might have been better able to take on the Pentagon and keep them in their place. Seems McChrystal is running rings around the White House such that one commentator compares him to MacArthur in Korea. Not hard to understand, given his role in the Tillman affair.
My uncle knew Harry Truman. Obama ain't no Harry Truman. That's for damn sure. And much like Vidal, I don't have much regard for Truman's legacy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 25, 2009 4:39 AM in reply to John Crandell
The original film (I haven't seen the newer one), is about a soldier (Sgt. Raymond Shaw) who, with the rest of his platoon, was captured by the Chinese during the Korean War, completely brainwashed by the Chinese acting in league with the Soviets and the North Koreans, and then sent back to the U.S. (where he is hailed as a war hero) as a sleeper agent acting under a form of mind control, robotically obeying the orders given him by his handlers (his American handler turns out to be his politically power-mad, manipulative mother) without remembering them.
Ultimately, he receives the order to assassinate a presidential nominee during the party convention at Madison Square Garden, a catastrophe to be staged in a way that it would put Raymond's puppet step-father (a U.S. Senator under the control of his wife), in a position to be swept into the White House "with powers that will make martial law seem like anarchy." This of course, would put the Communists in control of the United States, since the Senator's wife is one of their agents.
Not sure just where your neighbor saw the resemblance to Obama, unless he/she buys into the idea that he is some kind of plant put in place to turn over the United States to radical Muslims, who are now the bogeymen that replace the dastardly Communist bogeymen of the 1950's in which the original movie was set.
Seems a little premature to be criticizing Obama's decision on Afghanistan before he's even made it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 25, 2009 12:31 PM in reply to slb
The trick for progressives generally is to provide enough pressure to keep 'em honest, but not tip over into self-defeating cynicism. A little impatience is a good thing but not to the point of being a hater.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stop7997
October 25, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to John Crandell
The Manchurian Candidate meme is one that was trotted out by the right wing way back during the campaign -- nothing new there.
As far as Hillary vs. Obama: had Hillary been the nominee, Republicans' hatred of her is vitriolic and deep (though they've since developed as deep a hatred for Obama). They would have absolutely galvanized against her and McCain would be President, at which point the conversation would have been: should we have nominated Obama? No use rehashing the past.
Now that Obama is President, we just have to keep him to his word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Craig-Bob Schwartz
October 25, 2009 2:48 PM in reply to stop7997
I don't see any reason to believe that Obama supports the PO given all of the perfectly cogent and on-target statements he made while a candidate but failed to follow-up on (e.g., telecomm immunity, holding WoT prisoners without charges, etc.). He had to make enormous compromises to garner the establishment support necessary to be elected president, with the result that he is compromised and beholden to the well-monied interests that have been ripping off the public for generations (the health insurance racket is the perfect example of such a scam).
I fully support putting presure on Obama directly in the hope that he'll start making effective use of the "bully pulpit" as so many republican presidents have done in the past. It's time he learned how to turn the mic on and get in front of the podium. He's not the opening act, he's the headliner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LegalCat
October 25, 2009 5:03 PM
Because, you know, if Snowe votes for it, then all the other Republicans will say "Hey, we voted against it, but now that it's been adopted by a bipartisan vote, we'll do everything in our power to support it and to support the Obama administration in implementing it, because that's just how much respect we have for laws that are passed by bipartisan votes." Yessiree. You bet. That's what's going to happen if Snowe votes for it. That's why it's so important. Wouldn't want any Republicans sniping at it and trying to make the administration look bad, like they'd do if Snowe didn't vote for it.
For God's sake. Does ANYBODY believe this garbage? And if not, what the hell is the point of kissing Snowe's butt so long and hard? I just don't get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
October 25, 2009 5:24 PM
Opt-out is okay because at the end of the day, what state is going to opt out? But The Trigger is nonsense. A public option amounts to something perhaps on the scale of Medicare -- if not in sheer numbers at least in complexity. It's not a balloon you can inflate and deflate depending on which way the economy is trending. Either we have a public option, make the commitment, spend the money, hire the people, or we don't. The trigger is a half-arsed, half-step that powerful interests will ensure never gets pulled, and if it does it will be weak, watered-down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JYoo
October 25, 2009 6:36 PM
Really this is what it has come to?
I got one word for "nonsense"
networking
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
November 14, 2009 8:17 PM
Apparently, President Obama has decided to alienate every moderate and liberal in favor of a Republican Senator from Maine. If this were discussed in terms of what is best for health care for the average American citizen, instead of what's best for the bipartisan wet dream or big pharma or insurance companies, there would be a single payer. But, according to Obama, that wasnt doable. Now, that a relatively good public option is in sight, we discover it may not be doable, because of El Presidente. Maybe, one gets the feeling, maybe Obama wants welfare for the insurance companies or a little more time for them to milk us, or perhaps he wants big phama to get some more subsidized pricing, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama does not want a better health care system for Americans. What is with this guy? Even the politics (meaning votes from real citizens) favors a single payer or, as a fall back, a strong public option. Have the citizens become so irrelevant that even a popularly elected President feels no qualms about ignoring their desires and best interests?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
November 24, 2009 6:08 PM
Best Option: Single Payer (cuts costs, assures universal coverage, cuts layer of insurance company fat and puts health care dollars with health care providers) - Obama NO!
'Strong Public Option': Publicly provided insurance package does not include 13 - 28 % waste for marketing & advertising, screening (coverage denial), profits & CEO 'bonuses' - Obama NO!
Approaching-the-Meaninglessness 'Option': Obama NO!
Opt Out Provision - Obama "If we can get a vote from any Republican! YES!"
The most cost-effective system to deliver health care without wasteful 'middleman' private for-profit insurance ripoffs has been long off the table. What is left? Whatever is good, forget about it, because Obama will destroy it.
And, it is on this basis that Obama and the Democrats will seek donations, support and campaign volunteers in the coming elections.Good Luck !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 5:36 AM
Okay... How many of these anonymously sourced stories are we going have to endure? First, the PO is off the table. Then it's on. Then there are the votes for it. Then there aren't.
It's madness! We keep getting anonymous stories like this, only to have them knocked down by principals who are actually directly involved in pulling these bills together.
I not yet seen one of these "sources say" stories that is actually correct.
There seems to be too many moving parts right now -- so many that the people who are directly involved are still trying to gauge exactly where the votes are.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?