TPMDC
Todd Characterizes White House Approach To Reid: 'Don't Come Crying to Us When You Need That Last Vote'
Brian Beutler | October 27, 2009, 11:33AM
Share
Send to a friend!
If Chuck Todd's right about this, it could pour gasoline on the dying embers of a White House-Senate conflagration.
According to Todd, the White House is telling Reid *[see Late Update below], "You're the vote counter, but don't come crying to us when you need that last vote. That said, I've also been told, OK right now it's this 'opt-out,' the compromise could end up being the 'opt-in' and maybe this is what Reid was doing here--going with the 'opt-out' so the 'opt-in' was the compromise rather than the trigger being the compromise."
That's a lot of jargon, but to break it down, it sounds like White House officials are telling Todd two things.
First, they won't be there for Reid if he runs into political trouble keeping his caucus together for settling on a compromise (the opt-out) that is likely to cost him all Republican support.
Second, they seem to be telling him that this may be a gambit on Reid's part to do compromise down further, rather than simply settling on the lowest common denominator (the trigger) right away.
Either way, this is in direct contradiction to a). the White House's official statement of support for what Reid's doing, and b). Reid's insistence that he's doing what he thinks is right, and what can pass in the Senate. Can't imagine Democratic leadership is terribly pleased to hear this message leaking out of the administration.
*Late update: Todd tells Greg Sargent that his words are being taken too literally, and the White House didn't actually say this to him.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
-
Coakley 36%, Capuano 21%, Khazei 14%, Pagliuca 14%
-
Giuliani (R) 45%, Gillibrand (D) 43%
-
Gillibrand (D) 43%, Pataki (R) 38%
-
Giuliani 72%, Pataki 28%
-
Approve 49%, Disapprove 44%
Most Popular
- Fox Host: Public Option Would Be Tax-Payer Funded Government Health Care Program
- The New Lou Dobbs Economy
- The Final Four: Who's Standing In Reid's Way, And Can They Be Won Over?
- Palin Goes Rogue on Greta Van Susteren, Part 1
- White House Takes On Gun Lobby's Health Care Reform Attacks
- Alt.Fox.Universe
- Crist's Plan For FL-Sen: Throw A Little Gas On The Fire
- NC Health Insurer Being Probed For Campaign Against Public Option
- White House Takes On Gun Lobby's Health Care Reform Attacks
- Fox News Threatens Pink Slips For On-Screen Errors
- Rahm Orders Health Care Article Be Must-Read For Staffers
- White House Takes On Gun Lobby's Health Care Reform Attacks
- Police: Sparkman Committed Suicide, Made It Look Like Murder For Insurance Scam
- The Final Four: Who's Standing In Reid's Way, And Can They Be Won Over?
- Republicans and Democrats According to My Pa
- Goucher College Bans Speakers It Deems Anti-Israel --Also, How Joe Lieberman Became A Rightwing Crank
- Muslim Mafia Scribe: How I 'Toyed' With TPMmuckraker
- Palin Goes Rogue on Greta Van Susteren, Part 1
- Google Buys Ad To Explain Offensive Michelle Obama Image
- Obama 'Has Information He Needs' On Troops Decision
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Steve LaBonne
October 27, 2009 11:37 AM
Shut the fuck up, Rahm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 27, 2009 11:39 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Man, you're gullible. Todd needs a scoop. If he has to invent one, so be it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
October 27, 2009 11:43 AM in reply to FreeRider
I hope health care reform will finally enable you to get that humor transplant you've been needing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
October 27, 2009 11:46 AM in reply to FreeRider
Exactly! It won't be too awfully long before he's freelancing by-lined cover stories for Weekly World News.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
October 27, 2009 11:46 AM in reply to tiowally
Chuck Todd, that is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
October 27, 2009 12:33 PM in reply to FreeRider
todd's creds are questionable! He needs to be replaced!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 11:48 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Uh, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Todd aren't the same person. Chuck Todd is agreeing with Joe Scarborough's "sense" of the situation. He is not reporting on anything the White House said.
TPM's decision to report this as a quote from the White House is really fucking stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
October 27, 2009 12:24 PM in reply to Stroszek
Not really.
All your life, you've been hearing quotes "from" the White House, that you didn't know were quotes "from" the White House.
I second the "Shut the fuck up, Rahm!" on this one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 12:44 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
And the way you tell the real ones from the fake ones is that the real ones always happen to fit your preconceived beliefs, right?
We're sinking to Glenn Beck levels of speculative paranoia, folks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 27, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to Stroszek
Exactly. Brian Beutler WTF is this?
Did anyone actually watch the video? What's up with quality control on TPM these days?
In the video, Todd is just agreeing with Scarborough's speculation on the "sense" of where things might be. There are no quotes from the WH. Scarborough and Todd are basically talking out of thier butts.
And TPM is quoting this and attributing it to the WH? This is why I read blogs? This is the improvement over the MSM? Quoting the MSM speculation and attributing it to the WH?
Seriously, WTF? Back in the early 2000's Josh didn't do that kind of crap becasue he didn't cover everything, and wrote each post himself. I understand TPM has grown and overall it's a good thing. But really, quality control is slipping big time at TPM. These sorts of headlines and junk have become far too common. Pretty soon TPM may be all that people hate about the MSM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 27, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to Neil
parsing this (crap) further:
Todd's "don't come crying to us if you don't have the votes" line is PURE SPECULATION on his part. That's obvious from the video. He doesn't even claim to have a source actually saying anything of the sort.
Buetlers saying "That's a lot of jargon, but to break it down, it sounds like White House officials are telling Todd two things" is complete nonsense and an epic journalism
FAIL. Actually, there's a lot of unfounded speculation there on cable news, and Beutler is looking for something to post on.
To delve even further into this nonsense:
Todd at best claims he's heard from unnamed sources that somebody in the WH is concerned Reid's move is risky, and is perhaps leaking this concern. Well... DUH! So what? I'm sure Reid knows it's risky too.
Perhaps Todd wishes to speculate that someone in FDR's Administration may have been concerned that entering into WWII was "risky" and therefore Beutler may wish to revise history to state that despite FDR's many years of agitating to oppose Hitler and incrementally bringing us into WWII, we never in fact fully entered into WWII becasue FDR was overruled by said staff member.
Really. It never fails to amaze me when such idiocy passes as journalism by ostensibly well educated and intelligent people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
October 27, 2009 1:27 PM in reply to Neil
This is a really embarassing item from Brian.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TTN
October 27, 2009 2:08 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Shut the !@#$ up Todd...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 11:41 AM
hilarious
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 27, 2009 12:10 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Not as funny as the reactions of Obama wingnuts though. Have they read any of the articles detailing how "reform" has been sold out, by the White House first, to the health care lobbyists?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 27, 2009 12:13 PM in reply to Why oh why
Obama wingnuts. That's a new one. Thanks for the really substantive contribution to the discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:38 PM in reply to Why oh why
it's hard to believe some of these people will make it through a whole term of the President before they reach outrage overload.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 27, 2009 12:42 PM in reply to Why oh why
In the absence of facts and attributed quotes there is no way to tell the motivation of the Todd's administration source(if there even is one).
Since I know nothing more than anyone here(unless IndiePro is in fact a secret WH provcateur, LOL). It is as likely that the Administration is puposefully keeping Progressives angry in order to have them keep the pressure on the Senate as anything else.
The Bully Pulpit is useful, but if over-used it looses its punch. Public pressure(read:threat of losing power) however never loses its punch.
Cue the "apologist" comments from the folks who really didn't read what I have to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:50 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
I've made no claims on this, quite unlike you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I didn't mean anything "mean" by my comment. Just being clear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 27, 2009 1:05 PM in reply to Indie Pro
BTM...I was just zinging you w/ the provacateur comment.(sorry if I blew your cover, LOL)
All the things I say and have said come from the same sets of information you (and others that are more cynical than I) base your opinions on.
My point was that None of really know what strategist in the WH are up to. And the "apologist" are as likely to be right(And/or wrong) as the "Pessimists".
The odds are it's somewhere in the middle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 1:15 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
haha. My cover can never be blown!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 27, 2009 11:43 AM
I'm not one for polemics, but this is a gigantic load of Chuck Todd MSM bullshit and if you can't smell it from a thousand yards away, you need to see an ENT stat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 11:46 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I forgot to say it but you did, When did Chuck Dodd become a beacon of thorough and consequential reporting?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CN
October 27, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
The #1 priority at the White House is getting reform legislation -- any reform legislation -- passed. Yet if Reid is just a little bit short and asks the White House for help, Obama will say, "Sorry, tough luck."
Does Chuck Todd have any critical thinking skills at all?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 27, 2009 1:23 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
i totally agree and you said well. i'm actually very annoyed by this post by Beutler.
i've come to TPM, since it was founded by JM and was a dinky but very smart little one man blog, to read intelligent commentary and reporting.
i do not come to TPM to read some basically unknown staffer regurgitating cable spin as his blog "contribution."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 11:43 AM
If Chuck Todd's right about this, it could pour gasoline on the dying embers of a White House-Senate conflagration.
Facts or lack of them, I guess, shouldn't come in way of your poetic and metaphorical abilities.
Either way, this is in direct contradiction to a). the White House's official statement of support for what Reid's doing, and b). Reid's insistence that he's doing what he thinks is right, and what can pass in the Senate. Can't imagine Democratic leadership is terribly pleased to hear this message leaking out of the administration.
and certainly minor innuendos are sufficient to oversimplify the White House-Senate relations on the healthcare debate.
I really thing, a more social responsible journalism would be inform us by your investigative reporting, whether in fact Reid has the votes, and if not who are the major potential threats in the senate, and why? The White House/Senate tensions story is purely political belt-way entertainer without any substance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristi
October 27, 2009 12:14 PM in reply to kash79
Exactly.
TPM - please don't lose focus. The issue isn't White House/Senate tensions. It is whether there are 60 votes. If there aren't, who would be the hold-outs. Figure that out so we can focus on them.
Stop focusing on this crap. Both the White House and Senate Leadership will be thrilled for the Opt Out PO to pass. If there is a problem, the problem is with who is the Dem not supporting it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 27, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to Kristi
And the suggestion in the story is that the Dem not coming out and using his full force in support of opt in is named Obama.
But as far as we can tell from the story this is based on speculation based on assorted leaks about Obama's lack of enthusiasm for public option. 'Sure it'd be nice' is a lot different from 'I really want this and here's what I'm prepared to do to get it'
Time for careful watching and waiting and applying pressure to those already known to be a problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 27, 2009 1:30 PM in reply to kash79
Brian Beutler's next post:
"an unnamed member of the environmental community has stated that Large Hadron Collider may be "risky" and could perhaps spawn a black hole that will consume the entire planet. this new controversy could "pour gasoline" on the smoldering dispute between the science and environmental communities, questioning whether they may continue to coexist."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 11:44 AM
Someone didn't learn how to use quotation marks in journalism school!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 27, 2009 11:47 AM
Whatever, this sounds like a restatement of what we learned this morning, tweaked by Chuck T to make it sound controversial.
Reid told the WH he could get the votes. They told him to deliver, and indicated they clearly aren't willing to stand alone for the PO. That ain't news, IMO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to Dorn76
Agreed. This is Brain's attempt to legitimize his flagrant versions of the story using none other the highly respected Todd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to kash79
Village Journalism Rule #1
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seonachan
October 27, 2009 12:45 PM in reply to kash79
The real topper is David Kurtz's headline on the front page: "Gracious In Defeat on Public Option". Not even a question mark at the end?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 27, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to Seonachan
That is a dog pile of a headline, I agree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Obama1st
October 27, 2009 11:49 AM
This post is thrid hand at best. Source tells Todd something...Todd tells TPM what he thinks he heard...TPM tells us...WH spin thru Todd....
What a crock this post is when what is needed is a direct quote or a TPM attempt to confirm Todd's reporting with WH people...otherwise this is a bunch of horseshit brought to us by spin doctors supreme!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to Obama1st
No, it's not even that.
White House and Reid have a strategy discussion.
An anonymous source tells the Huffington Post something.
Joe Scarborough gives his "sense" of what was really meant.
Chuck Todd gives his own spin on Scarborough's "sense."
TPM reports Todd's spin on Scarborough's speculation as a direct quote from Obama.
I think we're up to sixth hand here, but I think we can still fit Politico into the mix if we try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
October 27, 2009 11:58 AM in reply to Stroszek
So, with the newspapers on the ropes and TV/cable outlets in the pockets of the corporate oligarchy, is this the caliber of journalism that we'll be served from now on? Reporting on some reporter's speculation?
Democracy as we know it is in big trouble.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 27, 2009 12:07 PM in reply to Schmed- ley
At the risk of provoking a "stop agreeing with me, dammit," moment, it's kind of a reassuring reality check to see it's not just the Shameless Apologists saying it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 27, 2009 12:28 PM in reply to Schmed- ley
I think the Yes Men stunt sort of says it all. The National Press Club is obviously credulous, and Reuters as well. Sensation, sensation, sensation! Skepticism is dying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 27, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to Stroszek
Actually, it's:
White House and Reid have a strategy discussion.
Anonymous sources tells Brian and tell HuffPo something that HuffPo intereprets as being like what Brian thought they meant.
Joe Scarborough gives his "sense" of what was really meant.
Chuck Todd gives his own spin on Scarborough's "sense."
Brian reports Todd's spin on Scarborough's speculation as a direct quote from Obama and then tells us what Obama really, really meant by it.
David links from front page to reporting on psychic mindreading regarding what was really, really, really meant with snarky editorialization flatly stating that White House was "defeated" by Reid and was ungracious about it.
Traffic ensues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 12:07 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You know, I don't really have a problem with TPM wanting to be the progressive Politico, but it would help if their bullshit actually contributed to progressive goals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 27, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to Stroszek
Harsh and yet an appropriate warning.
I think the key is not to recycle third-iteration hearsay to the point of manufacturing controversy.
Also, the disturbing tendency of so-called progressives to want to engage in friendly fire whenever they get the chance seems a bit troubling. Why the apparent eagerness? It seems to me that constantly hating Dems only helps the GOP. "Keeping up the pressure" is different than a facile, preening, gratuitious cynicism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
October 27, 2009 1:14 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
blech. Won't be long before we start hearing Priest, Rabbi, and Polish jokes as being news.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 27, 2009 1:36 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Right. I'm sooooo glad i'm giving TPM hits for this as opposed to watching NASCAR, chugging beer and screwing my sister. life improved!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
October 27, 2009 12:08 PM in reply to Stroszek
agree - what Beutler's reporting here as direct primary reporting, more likely is at least thrice spun reflection on what might have been intended.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 27, 2009 11:55 AM
Greg Sargent citing TPM's own interview with Schumer for the proposition that the evil White House secretly scheming against public option meme doesn't seem to make much sense.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/schumer-white-house-preferred-strong-public-option-and-not-trigger/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 11:58 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
"No question, Schumer would be expected to support the White House’s line in public, and it’s very possible that there were divisions within the White House and that some administration officials did try to bigfoot the trigger."
and
"Update: It’s true that Schumer said the White House preferred the trigger “substantively,” which means Obama aides may have lacked the stomach for it politically. But Schumer is also suggesting that the White House let Senate leadership determine the way forward, rather than insisting on its preferred course of action."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 12:01 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Thank God we have the words like "maybe" and "very possible" to keep bullshit stories alive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:02 PM in reply to Stroszek
just quoting his link, dude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 12:05 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes, ignore the facts/direct quotes and cite the qualified speculation. I know how tabloid journalism works.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:07 PM in reply to Stroszek
It’s true that Schumer said the White House preferred the trigger “substantively"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 12:14 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes, it's true that the White House wants the best public option that can pass the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:19 PM in reply to Stroszek
Then why all the outrage at a story that clearly says it is based solely on Todd?
Todd:
If Chuck Todd's right about this
According to Todd
but that isn't good enough. What if people miss that!! Outrage!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I respect your expectations from the HCR, but you still don't get it. The outrage is not about Todd reporting. It is diversion, based on innuendos, making it a story about WH versus the Senate, while the story right now is whether Reid in fact a great vote counter?
The later is the most important question for the bill to pass in the Senate anyways. If it in fact comes to last vote, do you really think WH will say "don't come to us crying."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:33 PM in reply to kash79
oh. I got it wrong. You see, it seems you guys are attacking TPM DC for reporting on stories going on in DC. My bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 12:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro
TPM is "reporting" here? I guess, you will never get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:42 PM in reply to kash79
Yes. Absolutely. They are. You are unbelievable.
What part of the definition of reporting do you think this divulges from? This should be good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to Indie Pro
see NCSteve (12:04) and Storszek (11:52) above for help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to kash79
fail on your part then
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 27, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I agree Indie TPM is in fact reporting.
The question is... Is Chuck Todd in fact 'Reporting'?"
Or does conflict drive ratings?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
C'mon. Brian says: it sounds like White House officials are telling Todd two things When it is clear, there is no evidence that WH said anything to Todd. This is far from what used to be called "reporting" anyways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:55 PM in reply to kash79
rage, rage against the dying of the light!!
back in the good ole days, reporting was reporting. Hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 27, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to kash79
There is never evidence when it comes to undisclosed "WH Officials". I see it as reporting on the "reporting".
Which is appropriate. The woefull state of the MSM and its reality TV brand of journalism is as much the story as anything else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 1:23 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
The change in headline is a good indicator on Brian's sweeping fact-like assertions based on Todd's reporting. I used to be here during days where TPM was far more skeptical of MSM reporting.
Anyway, change of headline is a good first step.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 1:34 PM in reply to kash79
they changed the headline because of whiny dolts like you. So, I guess that's mission accomplished for your outrage, except that essentially it says the exact same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 1:44 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I didn't but I know you now
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 2:19 PM in reply to kash79
yeah, I know you too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
Completely. Todd's a knob. I'm skeptical of anything that amn brings to the table.
On the other hand, I like to know what is going on, and I'm glad TPM brings it to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 27, 2009 12:45 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'm not seeing this "outrage" you keep referencing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to Dorn76
ok
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 27, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Schumer said the administration substantively preferred the stronger public option THAN the trigger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
I was quoting his link. Copy and paste.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 27, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to Stroszek
Don't forget "suggesting", "may", "would be". . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 27, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Where did you get that quote from? It doesn't match the ones I've read from Schumer.
"I think substantively the White House probably preferred a stronger public option than a trigger," Schumer said. "We talked about this for a while in leadership and the White House wanted to hear our thoughts--and when they heard them they thought that this was the right strategy to get our caucus together."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 1:00 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
I got it from the link in the comment I was commenting on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
October 27, 2009 11:56 AM
Ever since Todd stopped counting caucus votes in the summer of '08, his reporting has been lousy and manufactured. He seems to be gradually working his way to FOX. The naysayer in him is always busting to come out. Didn't his wife work for the McCain campaign or the GOP last year?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SchrodingersCat
October 27, 2009 12:33 PM in reply to xargaw
No, his wife is a democratic operative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 27, 2009 11:56 AM
If Chuck Todd's right about this, it could pour gasoline on the dying embers of a White House-Senate conflagration.
That would certainly rev up the story lines.
According to Todd, the White House is telling Reid, "
Is there a chance, Brian, that you will get a chance to talk to one of those anonymous sources who knows what the WH is telling Reid, rather than telling us what Chuck Todd (who has turned into one of the podded people after becoming a WH reporter--joining such lions of reporting as Jake Tapper, Chip Reid, and Mark "I spent a lot of time tallying up the number of times Bush and Obama had played golf at this point, and where are the women, btw" Knoller, but whatever) thinks the WH said? Please?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 27, 2009 12:49 PM in reply to CT Voter
After the brouhaha on Friday, Josh graciously responded with some very sound thinking about his use of anonymous sources. In the wake of that, this is just disappointing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 27, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to Dorn76
It seems the game has moved from anonymous sources to reporting unsourced 3rd-hand info.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 27, 2009 1:00 PM in reply to Dorn76
I read his responses which is why I was asking for corroboration from someone who might actually know, rather than relying on Todd's sense of Scarborough's sense of someone else's sense of something. Or other.
And I actually meant that Todd has turned into one of the potted people. As insightful and thoughtful as potted plants. Like golf announcers (outside of Johnny Miller).
But I think "podded" works just as well. He's been invaded by one of the body snatchers. The rest of us just don't know it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jacabo
October 27, 2009 11:58 AM
I am not fan of Harry Reid - but if he pulls this off it will be his finest hour and will go a long way in restoring my faith in the party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann Arbor
October 27, 2009 12:05 PM
Has David Gregory weighed in yet on what a big risk Reid is taking with the opt-out public option, and how it's really excellent news for the Republicans?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 27, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to Ann Arbor
No doubt he'll have John McCain on to explain it to us on Sunday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Schacht
October 27, 2009 12:11 PM
Look, this clearly an attempt to stymie all the progress progressives have made on including a public option in the final bill. Now that it's apparent that we have a workable compromise, hack journalists like Todd are hell bent on "getting the scoop" and drumming up false conflict and controversy. We shouldn't let this distract us from the real task, which is, now that we have some sort of public option on the table, making sure that it is "robust" by tying it to medicare reimbursement rates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 12:12 PM
I agree with Ann Arbor. My biggest concern, at the heart of the health care proceedings, as of now is what Schumer said: "Harry Reid is a great vote counter"
I would like serious reporting whether Reid is, in fact, a good vote counter and what are the threats in the Senate now that opt-out PO is the amalgamated bill.
It is the core of the concern the needs focus. Not outrageous interpretations on WH-Senate relations based on 6th hand reporting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 27, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to kash79
Co-sign this.
The big and only question right now is: Does Reid in fact have the votes?
If one of those votes in Joe "Backstabber" Leibermann, we're in trouble.
It's a huge concern, in fact. When I did some counting several months ago, it was razor thin to get to 60 to have cloture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beagle
October 27, 2009 12:12 PM
"They", "They"... who exactly is "They"?
"They" should know by now that the 'Public Option' has more lives than a cat; it has been pronounced dead a few times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 27, 2009 12:16 PM in reply to Beagle
Someone has a diary over at Kos listing all the pundits/"experts" who have declared the public option dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beagle
October 27, 2009 1:21 PM in reply to CT Voter
I believe this is what you are talking about
http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002293/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 27, 2009 1:38 PM in reply to Beagle
No, I meant the link I put in--click on the link.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gizmo
October 27, 2009 12:14 PM
Throughout this whole miserable process it's been clear that the White House wants to get a healthcare bill passed, and will compromise on the details for the sake of chalking up a political win. Progressives, on the other hand, want substantial and meaningful reform of the healthcare system.
I'm still worried that when the House/Senate conference committee meets, the Obama administration is not going to fight for a decent public option. They will be pressuring Reid and Pelosi to cave and take what they can get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 27, 2009 4:31 PM in reply to gizmo
If we are going to recount imaginary White House conferences what the White House may have learned from Harry is that there are quite a number of Democratic Senators who are planning to vote against HCR if it doesn't have opt out or better. This would make opt out the best chance of getting the caucus together -- regardless of whether they yet have 60 votes or not. The progressives should stick to their guns on this one -- if it goes down in the current form the Blue Dog types get blamed. And we get to try for single payer after 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 12:16 PM
Also, seriously, if in fact it comes to the "last vote" any reasonable person will not agree the WH response will be "don't come to us crying," because the entire Obama administration prospects hinge on the success or failure of the healthcare bill.
More than anyone they have the vested interest to see it pass, even if they think PO-opt out had made it a little more difficult to pass it through the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
October 27, 2009 12:16 PM
Not only is Todd showing his foolishness on the face of his story, he's showing his deeper foolishness and journalistic flaws by even thinking this is a story.
The biggest and most accurate criticism of Todd is that he is captured by the glamor of celebrity politics and takes everything he is fed as if it descended from above on golden tablets, rather than investigating underlying facts and background.
Throughout this entire process, the WH has carefully (publicly) sidestepped grand progressive goals, thereby never letting itself be turned into a lightning rod for opposition, as the process grinds forward. If nothing else, Obama's approach is nuanced, incremental and tactful.
One of two things occurred. Either Todd is just a fool, and is misreading tea leaves, or he's a dupe and the administration intentionally leaked this to him, to misdirect all the Keystone Cops into running down another blind alley.
Come to think of it, those aren't really mutually exclusive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kovie
October 27, 2009 1:04 PM in reply to Mr.E.
I.e. no matter how OUTWARDLY anti-progressive Obama's actions might appear to us clueless dupes, they're ALWAYS intended to accomplish the exact opposite of what they appear intended to accomplish, in master 11D chess fashion.
Thus, his unending series of legal maneuvers that merely APPEAR to be intended to preserve and extend the Bush national security apparatus are actually brilliant fake-outs intended to tear it down. And his appearing to be against meaningful financial industry reform is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE!
Me so stupid!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 27, 2009 7:39 PM in reply to kovie
well it seems to me that HCI reform is moving along, we're now debating the type of public option that will eb included in both the Senate and House, and Obama has said he supports a public option all along.
so really, what beside impatience and trolling is your problem?
oh wait, let me guess. Obama and Congressional leaders have secretly been lying to us all along, never supported HCI reform or the public option... but thankfully for all of us people like you have outmaneuvered them all.
right.
how was your grandeur not previously obvious to me?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kovie
October 27, 2009 8:27 PM in reply to Neil
I.e. whatever crumbs Obama throws at you, is AOK, because by definition it's the best he could have gotten. So if I'm the troll in this scenario, who's the adulatory bot?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
October 27, 2009 12:18 PM
Progressive Dems to WH: "Don't come crying to us when you lose in 2012."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 12:32 PM in reply to theWalrus
People like Todd have careers bcoz of people like you, who take him at face value.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
October 27, 2009 12:38 PM in reply to kash79
Three possiblities:
1] Chuck Todd is lying.
2] Chuck Todd's source is lying.
3] The statement is essentially true.
I was thinking of all three when I posted. Can anyone *prove* which it is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to theWalrus
exactly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 12:45 PM in reply to theWalrus
Chuck Todd is speculating.
Chuck Todd didn't say this was a quote from the White House or even a paraphrase of something the White House actually said. The quotation marks were TPM's "embellishment." To that extent, TPM is either lying or don't know what quotation marks are supposed to signify.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 1:14 PM in reply to Stroszek
the part in quotes is the part inwhich they are quoting Todd, who is mentioned at the front of the headline, with colons to let us know what follows is from him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 27, 2009 12:18 PM
I hate anonymous quotes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 27, 2009 12:18 PM
The White House is not that stupid. If it comes down to a single vote no way WH will sit it out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 27, 2009 12:26 PM in reply to agio
But, but, but!!! Harry Reid is now a HERO, and therefore, the WH MUST HAVE SAID STFU to Harry. What else could be going on?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musical_fan
October 27, 2009 12:21 PM
Media Matters noticed in May of this year that Chuck Todd spends an inordinate amount of time praising the GOP and often makes broad, accusatory statements about the Democratic majority. I don't know if this is further proof of that or if the WH really is this afraid of losing sous-president Snowe's support on hcr, but I think Todd's track record undermines his credibility on this issue.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200703300009
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NitPicker1
October 27, 2009 12:24 PM
This is gossip mongering, not reporting, Brian. If you think there is any substance here AT ALL, you should be chasing down some confirmation rather than wasting your time (and ours) typing up this drivel.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 27, 2009 12:26 PM
Accuracy in 'reporting' by late-to-the-party media heather, Chuck Todd (aka Simone) on the job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
October 27, 2009 12:32 PM
The hypocrites a.k.a. republicans are playing you all like fiddles. All this bogus misinformation is being put out there to confuse you all. Todd knows shyt!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
October 27, 2009 12:44 PM
Oh yes, the Obama White House -- which will sink like a stone if HCR fails -- is telling Sen. Reid he's on his own on the health care bill. Really? Who believes such nonsense?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
October 27, 2009 12:53 PM
Chuck Todd is the resident White House mole, so I'm incline to believe him. Again and again, it seems that this White House is sliding down a slippery slop not only with the democratic base but the entire party. I am hoping Chuck Todd's reporting is wrong, because if he is telling the truth then my message to Obama is: " Don't come crying to us when u lose in 2012."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 27, 2009 12:59 PM in reply to ru4862
Good Ole Reliable Chuck Todd said the Public Option was dead not too long ago. In fact he was quite sure of himself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kovie
October 27, 2009 12:54 PM
All I want to know is whether the people who instinctively and immediately come running to the defense of He Who Is Pure In Heart And Can Do No Wrong No Matter What actually believe their truly embarrassing nonsense about how any report that shows Obama and the WH in a negative light is either made-up, grossly distorted or based on the sniping of a disgruntled mid-level WH staffer, or they're just paid to post it. It's just that I'm not very sophisticated about the ways of bot-dom and PR flacking and can't always tell the two apart.
This may or may not be one of those made-up, grossly distorted or based on the sniping of a disgruntled mid-level WH staffer quotes that plague every administration and have certainly plagued this one, but it's certainly not out of character for this undeniably corporatist, establishmentarian, Blue Dog-worshipping administration, which has been cutting deals and going out of its way to prevent a genuinely strong health care reform bill from passing.
Oh, wait, it's all a part of President Brilliant's master plan for epochal progressive reform. Yeah, right, uhuh.
A little bird named PhRMA told me so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 27, 2009 1:24 PM in reply to kovie
I don't believe the Obama White House can do no wrong, but I also don't believe they are blind to common sense.
The Democrats get 1 shot at this, and if they screw it up it will have rather dire electoral consequences. The idea that, if the votes aren't there, the White House will sit on its hands because it's somehow miffed that Reid went a different direction than Obama wanted is ludicrous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 27, 2009 12:55 PM
Remember, Rahm was the brilliant strategist behind the Democrats not talking about the Iraq war in the 2006 elections and de-emphasizing Republican corruption. Those were, of course, the two most important issues to voters. Had the Democrats done the obvious and focused on those two issues throughout the campaign, the Democratic margin then and now would be much greater. Rahm, like his boss, is a committed DLC Democrat dedicated to servicing the needs of corporations and the powerful first and foremost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
October 27, 2009 12:56 PM
Ok, this bullshit has to stop now. First, progressive outlets that I trust all fall line and believe the "White House prefers a trigger" story based on sloppy anonymous sourcing. Now, NBC's resident goatee wearer goes on a rhetorical jazz riff influenced by Joe Scarborough's misinformation and all of a sudden that's news? Come the fuck on! Check out more of that Scarborough/Todd exchange to see what I'm talking about: http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002296/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 27, 2009 1:02 PM
Here we are again, projecting onto a void of post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MiamiGuy
October 27, 2009 1:05 PM
More sensational misinformation from TPM!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
October 27, 2009 1:26 PM
And TPM joins HuffPo on reporting people just making shit up.
Must be good to be a villager, eh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 27, 2009 1:28 PM
Chuck Todd admitted he was just spicing things up for ratings.
Shame on TPM for pushing this non-story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 1:41 PM in reply to Stroszek
you should leave in protest!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 1:43 PM in reply to Indie Pro
that's unfair. Just continue to stamp your feet and pout in protest. Hang around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kovie
October 27, 2009 8:41 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Didn't you get the memo? Any quote that reflects poorly on Obama was intentionally made-up to make him look bad. The man, by definition, simply cannot do bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 27, 2009 1:33 PM
"*Late update: Todd tells Greg Sargent that his words are being taken too literally, and the White House didn't actually say this to him. "
Oh I get it, FIGURATIVELY not LITERALLY. I get it. WH didn't actually say that, Chuck Todd said that. But that's what they meant.
And while it may have been true that the WH thought the trigger was safer, does anyone think the WH is eager to have this huge bill, arguably the major accomplishment of the presidency, be defeated? Ludicrous.
Either the WH is really stupid, or this has to be one of the biggest circle jerk nontroversies in recent memory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 1:46 PM
Todd tells Greg Sargent that his words are being taken too literally, and the White House didn't actually say this to him.
Effing Hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
October 27, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to kash79
Yep. People should learn from this: Take neither TPM nor Todd seriously when they speak. They just make shit up, and breathlessly report people making shit up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 27, 2009 2:39 PM in reply to kash79
He's going to stand by the fabricated quote because he knows Obama thinks it anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 27, 2009 2:15 PM
So given the Late Update, what exactly are we talking about?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?