TPMDC
Rahm Orders Health Care Article Be Must-Read For Staffers
President Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and Ron Brownstein
Share
Send to a friend!
When President Obama likes a magazine article, White House staffers had better read it.
Obama's must-read is Ron Brownstein's Saturday blog post "A Milestone in the Health Care Journey" at the Atlantic's political Web site.
Politico noted today that Obama found the article, which lauds Max Baucus' approach to health care, a good summary of the cost controls in the health care bill.
An administration official tells TPMDC that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned the article as homework during a recent meeting.
According to the official, Emanuel told senior staffers "not to come back to the next day's meeting if they hadn't read the article."
Comments (119) | 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.
runfastandwin
November 24, 2009 11:58 AM
BREAKING NEWS! Boss tells workers to do what he tells them to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 24, 2009 11:59 AM in reply to runfastandwin
Raaaaaaaahm!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
November 24, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to Stroszek
But, but, but ...
The cost-control mechanisms have a big middle-class tax increase in them. We can't possibly tax some of those hard-workin' union members' tax plans who gave up numerous salary increases for their benefits. That would be too McCainesque.
And we most certainly can't give some big guvmint' board to control payments to providers. That would be almost like rationing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:03 PM in reply to runfastandwin
And like any teacher to their students, that admonition was probably intended for a lazy few, not the whole staff.
No doubt THEY knew who they were when he said it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to JEP07
Heh. I once had a boss who sent out an all-staff memo, the gist of which was that, while most of the employees were either doing an outstanding job, or just being merely competent, there were a few employees who were not pulling their weight, and who should find other employment immediately. He actually used the words: "You know who you are."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Spiffarino
November 24, 2009 3:50 PM in reply to commie atheist
You should read about the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Your old boss risked losing his best employees!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
The study showed that incompetent people consistently rate themselves as more competent than they actually are. Interestingly, higher-performing individuals tend to rate themselves fairly accurately.
This probably explains a lot about Republicans, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to Spiffarino
Actually, a lot of people quit because they couldn't stand working for a psychotic, coke-snorting megalomaniac who also happened to be a conservative Republican. The same memo I referred to above ended like this: "God bless (name of company), God bless President Bush, and God bless the United States of America!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
November 24, 2009 3:14 PM in reply to JEP07
This is a deliberate leak to prepare us liberals for the dropping of the public option. "See, it's no big deal, all these experts like it!"
There's not much I dislike more than the feeling someone is trying to manipulate me.
What's so special about the article anyway? Anyone in the WH working on HCR should know all this stuff already.
They can't get 60, they don't want the "confrontational" reconciliation approach, and they don't want to let it lose and gamble that the electorate in 2010 will punish Repugs for mindlessly blocking it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lexalexander
November 24, 2009 4:31 PM in reply to trblmkr
Sadly, I believe you are correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Schwartz
November 24, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to trblmkr
Happily, I believe you are correct. It’s absolutely amazing and to this far-left-winger’s surprise that we are going to get any new program going at all.
(As I said many times during the primary campaign: It didn’t matter what Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan was, because she wouldn’t get it passed. Paul Krugman was wasting time and ink. But Barack Obama may actually succeed.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CN
November 24, 2009 1:34 PM in reply to runfastandwin
In related news, Sarah Palin ordered her staffers to sniff paint fumes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
November 24, 2009 3:17 PM in reply to CN
she ordered them to inhale her farts and then tell her how sweet they smell. The staffer with the least flattering description gets fired on the spot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
November 24, 2009 12:00 PM
Awwwww.... this is so cute!
Now the blogo-media is going to bend over backwards in the hopes of earning the "Obama reads me!!!" status.
This is very well planned and played. Credit where credit is due.
P.S. - I wonder if Obama read the comments section too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
de TOQUEville
November 24, 2009 12:08 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
I'm sure Obama could spot a troll in the comments when he sees one....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
November 24, 2009 12:12 PM in reply to de TOQUEville
It's perfectly OK that you're too stupid to see how cleverly, subtly and just plain smartly the WH has just massaged every journalist's fragile Ego.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 24, 2009 12:23 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
It's a good article.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:02 PM in reply to Dorn76
Lalo, I'm not surprised you capitalize "Ego."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to JEP07
I'm not surprised that Lalo spews the conservatard talking point of the day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:28 PM in reply to commie atheist
Verbatim, no less...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 24, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to JEP07
Honestly, when you've got Michael Steele setting the high bar for what passes for discourse among conservatives these days, it's hard for me to equate Lalo with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 2:52 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
He does that quite nicely himself, thank you...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 4:36 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I agree: Steele's contributions would be more substantive.
Is there a way we can trade Lala for Steele?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 4:34 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Rare praise for the WH. I wish it were a blog so I could "rec" it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 24, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Yeah, being a president who actually reads newspapers... clever, maybe a little too clever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to Stroszek
Well, he'll to go a ways to match the intellectual curiosity of George W. Bush, who not only read that masterpiece of existentialism, Camus' The Stranger, while he was still president, but who routinely reads 60-100 books a year.
It's true! Karl Rove said so!!! Just look at the authorial ego-stroking given by the Deciderer in this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025595706634689.html
And you know that Karl would never lie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 24, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to commie atheist
The Stranger isn't really that surprising. A novel about being persecuted for your emotional indifference and random acts of violence is right up Bush's alley.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 4:38 PM in reply to Stroszek
Unfortunately he thought it was an "How To" manual.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 4:39 PM in reply to commie atheist
"books" is a typo. He meant pages. And that was hyperbole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mc mark
November 24, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
first rule of the internets,
don't read the comments section.
oh...wait...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
November 24, 2009 12:09 PM
Awwwwwwwwww.....he actually reads! Will Palin follow suit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
November 24, 2009 12:16 PM in reply to roxsteady
Doubtful. Those purty lips get tired easily.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 12:28 PM in reply to roxsteady
Palin reads everything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
November 24, 2009 12:24 PM
the article is a joke if anyone here actually read it.
so whats the point of this?
obama throws progressives under the bus again??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 24, 2009 12:31 PM in reply to JadeZ
it's an article praising baucus and conservative concerns. A must read!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 24, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to JadeZ
Yes, an article explaining overlooked cost control mechanisms favored by both left and center-left economists... what an outrage!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
November 24, 2009 12:26 PM
Brownstein's is a must read
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:15 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
"bends the curve" in the long-term growth of health care costs.
Federal and State diagnostic clinics!!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/24/eveningnews/main5337931.shtml
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seeryer
November 24, 2009 12:26 PM
Is it me or is everyone in DC a pussy? When Rahm Emanuel is made out to be the toughest guy in town and he weighs 150 pounds soaking wet WTF. Seriously TPM, a little less with the DC CW regarding this guy. He told people to read a friggin blog post. Oh, the horror. What next, a message board?!! Yikes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 12:34 PM in reply to Seeryer
From: Rahm
To: Staff
It has come to my attention that some motherfucker has been going to the men's room in the West Wing and leaving used paper towels on the floor. This is bullshit. If I find out who's doing this, that motherfucker's head is going to be rolling so fast he'll have fucking vertigo for the rest of his goddamn life.
Enough of the bullshit, people. You're all grownups, and your mother doesn't work here. One more dirty fucking dish in the break room sink and everyone's losing their break room privileges.
And don't forget to read that motherfucking article. That is all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:06 PM in reply to commie atheist
I would guess your wording in that last sentence was more accurate that what the public got fed...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:10 PM in reply to JEP07
I wish Rahm had a blog, and gave us a regular list of what the President reads... It might be very helpful in showing the skeptics that he's REALLy workin' hard, not just sayin' so.
Like W, and whatsername, oncha know...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Catzmaw
November 24, 2009 1:20 PM in reply to commie atheist
What I want to know is where you got ahold of an obviously authentic internal White House memo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to Catzmaw
It was leaked to me by an anonymous administration official, whose initials are R.A.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 24, 2009 1:23 PM in reply to Catzmaw
Me too. More bullshit non-stories from "white house sources".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
November 24, 2009 9:03 PM in reply to commie atheist
loving it!
from his reputation, i wouldnt put it past the man
he is brilliant though, i just dig everything rahm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
November 24, 2009 12:37 PM
Now, having just read this article I can see why Rahm likes it. The only mention of the public option is in the comments. As for the President, if this bill ends up without the public option, he's toast as well. So, why not go out with a bang. This article is long and technical and extols the virtues of what has been kept in the bill through the process but, ignores the fact that without a strong public option, you're still forcing us to choose between private insurers and that's not going to cut it. We'll see what happens. Will Obama and the Dems commit political suicide?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to roxsteady
Yeah, right. Democrats are going to sink the only president to accomplish what FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton failed to do over the past 70 years if the bill does not include something they'd never even heard of a year ago.
The Kos/Ed Schultz crew were going to destroy the Dems if they didn't get single payer. OK, OK. They'd settle for a ROBUST public option but that's it. OK. OK. We'll take a public option not attached to medicare rates. Ok. OK. We'll take an opt-out public option.
LOL.
STFU. You'll take whatever the fuck you get and you'll like it. Why? Because, no matter how much you fantasize, there is no other option.
Sometimes I think you people really believe the shit you write. That's what makes you so ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
The Kos/Ed Schultz crew were going to destroy the Dems if they didn't get single payer.
Bullshit. Everybody knew that single payer was never going to happen. The public option was a major compromise for progressives, and that was the starting point of negotiations. But even that was branded as socialism and a bridge too far.
Feh. I guess anyone who believes in sticking to their principles is just ridiculous to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 1:50 PM in reply to commie atheist
But that's the point. You don't stick to your principles. Kos/Schultz started out demanding single payer, said they wouldn't settle for anything less. Now, they're OK with an opt-out public option not tied to medicare rates.
They're full of hot air AND full of shit. That's why they're a joke. Excuse me but Schultz, Olbermann, Hamsher and Huffington have no clout and their threats to beat/abandon the democrats if they don't get their pony are a joke.
Their constant claim that Obama = Bush. It's like they forgot how awful the past 8 years were and are willing to go back there if they don't get the perfect healthcare bill. They'd rather see 45K Americans die each year for lack of insurance just so they can grandstand. Fuck 'em!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 2:03 PM in reply to FreeRider
You're incoherent. On the one hand, progressives are giving in on their demands, and on the other hand, they're going to "abandon" the democrats and kill people if they don't get their way. Which is it?
Is there something wrong with pushing to get a more progressive health care bill? While realizing that you'll end up with something that falls short in some ways?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to commie atheist
I'm sick of the threats from the left that do NOTHING but undermine the president.
Politics/governing is compromise. So when the left continually labels Obama a Bush-lite sell-out they're only hurting their ultimate goals. Do they really think they're helping healthcare reform by trashing the president? Do they really think they're making the party stronger by saying Obama is no better than Bush?
All of the grandstanding and bashing amounts to NOTHING but to buck up the right wing nutters and undermine the president because they ultimately accept what comes down the pike.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 3:17 PM in reply to FreeRider
Ah yes, "the left," that monolithic slab of crazies who all think with one brain and speak with one voice. Unless you provide some examples of anyone on the left, other than Naderities, LaRouchies and actual Marxists, "trashing" Obama, I'm going to have to assume you're just throwing out strawmen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to commie atheist
I've already named them. In the meantime, I'll do you a favor and repeat: Schultz, Huffington, Hamsher, Olbermann, Kos, Sirota. If you think I'm making that up, apparently you never visit those sites or watch those shows.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
Olbermann:
Wow, he really "trashed" Obama that time! It's just like some teabagger calling Obama a Kenyan-born muslim commie terrorist.
I'm sure Google would help me find equally mild and speculative criticisms of Obama from those other folks, but I'll take your word for it. Again, as I said before, pushing Obama to assert his support for a strong public option, and taking Democrats to task for waffling on real reform, is what I would call a good thing, and beats just accepting whatever the corporatists decide is good enough for us. YMMV.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
November 24, 2009 6:01 PM in reply to FreeRider
Free Rider, so tell us what have you done to help achieve heatlh care reform?
All I see from you is projection.
Here are two examples of you talking out of both sides of your mouth.
First, you say they can't compromise, then you accuse them of not sticking to "principles".
If not for Left leaning TV pundits like Olbmerman, ED, Rachel Maddow, and the fantastic lobbying, fundraising and true grassroots activism lead by Hamsher and other progressives - even what's left of the Public option would be dead now.
That seems to be what you are arguing for, a dead public option.
This is about health care, it's bigger than Obama. He ran as a progressive, but he is administering the presidency as a blue dog, or new democrat. If we wanted that, we could have voted for Hillary.
You are content to be a "free-rider" and belong the Barack cult of personality club with what your new father figure gives you, and you don't want anyone else fighting for more than the bones that are thrown at as.. never mind if the meat has all but been picked off them, and that they actually are belong to the poorest among us.
This is about issues, not about right-left binary divide and conquer political tactics.I think you are suffering from stockholms syndrome. Obama's no messiah. He's axelrods Pygmalion.
Perhaps you could do more than try to destroy the movement to get some decent health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 8:18 PM in reply to shekissesfrogs
You're a dining room table.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
November 25, 2009 12:00 AM in reply to shekissesfrogs
Never mind, Commie and shekisses. FreepRider is still trying to figure out how to weasel out of the concrete evidence that Obama campaigned on a public plan (aka Public Option), after months of FreepRider braying that Obama didn't do that, no, couldn't possibly do that, nuh-uh.
FreepRider's current tactic is to say, "See! He called it a New Public Plan, not a Public Option! I was right!" (And then jump up and down, cover his ears and say "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" whenever anyone comes forward with more evidence. Oh, and to complain that that evidence has Too Many Words, and Reading is Hard.)
That's some serious reality denial, folks. Worthy of the loyalest of the loyal Bushies. And probably all you need to know about our very own resident Lieberman sock puppet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 4:49 PM in reply to commie atheist
LaRouchites are far-far-far-right, hanging from the edge of the cliff with the last knuckle of the pinky on one hand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 4:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
Agreed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 24, 2009 2:39 PM in reply to commie atheist
No there isn't, and we'd be stupid to just eat this shit sandwich being foisted on us by weak kneed Democratic leadership.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 24, 2009 2:46 PM in reply to Dorn76
I agree, but who here is calling Obama "Bush Lite"? Oleeb hasn't commented here yet as far as I can see, and Olbermann and Schulz never go that far, or really even get close. They might hammer Nelson, Landrieu, etc., but harsh criticim of Obama does not pass their lips.
Of course there's cranky progressives here, but if it weren't for them would we even have the current weakass PO in the bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 24, 2009 2:48 PM in reply to Dorn76
I meant to agree with Free Rider, above in part, though it is easier to agree with myself...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to Dorn76
I pretty much agree with myself most of the time also. So we're in agreement on that point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 3:02 PM in reply to Dorn76
That's bullshit. Every night Olbermann and Schultz tell us how Obama has thrown healthcare and the progressives under the bus. It was Olbermann who called for the president to be primaried. Both shows are filled with Huffington posters whining about how XYZ "just isn't good enough" and why Obama should fire Geithner and Summers and Bernanke and why Joe Biden should resign.
They're calling the jobs problem Obama's Katrina. As if Obama is responsible for the job losses. In January, we lost 750K+ jobs. In october that number is down to 190K. He made it clear that recovery would be a long hard slog and that things would take a while to turn around. Clearly things are moving in the right direction but you never hear about that.
If they couldn't complain, they would be mute.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to Dorn76
And furthermore, you're getting what you're getting because of Whitehouse, Schumer, Brown, Dodd, Waxman, Weiner, Reid, Sanders, etc. not because of those cable news blowhards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 24, 2009 3:10 PM in reply to FreeRider
I agree with that, not enough people watch Ed or Keith to make a whit of difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 3:27 PM in reply to Dorn76
I agree. But they say something and it is repeated here and on HP as gospel. That's where that "Obama is losing his base" comes from.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 24, 2009 7:20 PM in reply to FreeRider
He is losing his base. He might not be primaried, but people won't turn out for him as they did before. If he wins again, it'll be mostly because of big money donations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 8:20 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Sure. Kinda like how he wouldn't get any more campaign donations after he voted for FISA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
November 24, 2009 10:00 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
yeah thats right. people shouldnt turn out for Obama, that way we can swear in Tim Pawlenty, yay! or even better, Sarah Palin.
that was snark, for the snark-impaired.
the problem with democrats is that they are never satisfied with anything, and no matter how well Obama does they will still moan about the perfection they havent attained yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 24, 2009 1:24 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'm with you and I share the frustration
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
November 24, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to FreeRider
"STFU. You'll take whatever the fuck you get and you'll like it. Why? Because, no matter how much you fantasize, there is no other option."
There is another option, draw the line at House version of the public option, if it fails, let it. Then spend whatever it takes in the 2010 mid-terms to paint Repugs and DINO Senators as bought-and-paid-for obstructionists and try to increase the Dem Senate majority to 62-63 with fewer DINOs.
BTW, what's with all the STFUs and so on? Hey, are you actually Rahm??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 3:31 PM in reply to trblmkr
Like I said, there is no other option. Your post proves it. If you think the Democrats have the option of NOT passing healthcare, you're delusional.
When we have a Democratic president and huge majorities in both houses, no one will buy the "we tried but . . ." bullshit. If they don't deliver, it's "good night, Mrs. Callabash!" Don't believe me? Ask the 52 house Democrats (including the speaker) who lost reelection in 1994.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
November 24, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to FreeRider
Oh, like YOU said. That's different, that must prove it then...
The bill in '94 never got nearly this far in the process and there was no huge body of video/audio of Repugs making stupid ass, easily disprovable comments re:healthcare reform.
There were other factors involved in the election such as Somalia, the Rostenkowski scandal, and Clinton's attempt at gun control so let's not oversimplify.
Just because you accept the beltway wisdom(the same beltway wisdom that said Obama's election was a "longshot at best") that Obama has to pass "something, anything" or suffer in '10 doesn't make it true no matter how many times you write that it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 4:57 PM in reply to trblmkr
That is the trend in the polls. Those who sit on the mantra that the Democrats have a sufficient majority will turn against the Democrats if they DON'T pass health care reform.
That's the baseline.
What is in the bill is a separate issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to trblmkr
Moron. If the Democrats don't deliver, they will prove they can't govern. They won't get another chance. That's not beltway CW. That's fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
November 24, 2009 5:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
What's with all the "moron" and "STFU" etc.? Why are you participating in this forum, to get some kind of sadistic name calling jollies?
NOBODY, Repub or Dem admin could govern if the minority party threatened filibuster on EVERYTHING, right. How is that the Dems fault in the current situation? Simple messages win, "party of 'no'", "obstructionists". Who made you the owner of the crystal ball?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
November 24, 2009 6:36 PM in reply to trblmkr
He doesn't understand the differences between the caucuses. His world view is binary, left/right, black white. He's an Authoritarian follower of a democratic president, and he still believes the Obama's campaign rhetoric.
He believes in his own weakness as much as the unitary executive.
He has succumbed to the political demagoguery, is playing the role of brown-shirter as a means of survival.
He would purge progressives if he could, To him we are as dangerous as the right-wing nutters. What if we are right?
It's a reactionary position, from the last 8 years he's unable to accept the let down and what it means for all of us. HIs real fight is with his cognitive dissonance but he's reassigned the cause.
He is suffering from stockholm syndrome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
November 25, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to shekissesfrogs
He's an Authoritarian follower of a democratic president, and he still believes the Obama's campaign rhetoric.
Very well put. I remember the bumper sticker, "God, please save me from Your followers." I think we need a similar bumper sticker reading, "President Obama, please save me from your followers."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
November 25, 2009 1:26 AM in reply to FreeRider
Yeah, right. Democrats are going to sink the only president to accomplish what FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton failed to do over the past 70 years if the bill does not include something they'd never even heard of a year ago.
Wrong again. No news there.
Krugman, August 2009:
Ezra Klein, August 2009:
NYT, 30 May 2007 (that's right, 2-1/2 years ago), reporting on major Obama health care policy speech in Iowa City:
WaPo, Feb 2008 (almost 2 years ago): "Both the Obama and Clinton proposals contain these elements, as well as the option to buy into a public plan. Their most striking difference is on whether to require everyone to get a policy."
CNN Election Center 2008:
Sometimes I think you really believe the shit you write. That's what makes you so ridiculous, Lieberman sockpuppet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
November 24, 2009 12:40 PM
See, none of those cost controls will do it better that a public plan, open to all would. You increase your pool by going national. Now the insurance companies have no where to run. They can't take their disgusting practices to other states because they'll all have the same option of choosing their competitors. How do they argue with those facts!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:27 PM in reply to roxsteady
"How do they argue with those facts!"
With lies, disinformation, and campaign contributions to the worst reds.
Can we start calling Republicans "Reds" yet?
What goes around comes around...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to JEP07
Yes, we can. Just pretend "socialist" is the same as "Commie," and there you are: calling the socialism for the rich "Commie-ism".
The shorthand for which is "Red".
Yeah! Let's have a "Red scare!" against the far-right this time!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 24, 2009 12:42 PM
"An administration official tells TPMDC..."
I know no malice is intended, but I get really irritated not just with DC journalists reliance on anonymous sources, but it's a been a problem for a very long time. What is so terrible about this article or staff being asked to read it that the source has to be anonymous? I expect I speak for a lot of readers when I say that unless they're whistle-blowers, I assume anonymous sources are lying. Yet journalists seem utterly unaware of this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jfields
November 24, 2009 12:57 PM
The previous Adminstration had its staff do things like be complicit in torture.
Rahm is having his folks read Atlantic articles.
I think I'm gonna go with Rahm, here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to jfields
Great point...
Rahm; "Read that f#$%^n' news article or else..."
Rove "Write that f#$%^n' torture memo or else..."
Where does the real profanity lie?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 5:06 PM in reply to jfields
I don't. I'm not sure. To me it's difficult to decide which I'd prefer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 24, 2009 1:18 PM
Perhaps, Obama should spend a few minutes reading up on the breaking news regarding the Global Warming/Climate hoax. Perhaps, he should look into who or what was behind the plot to fleece this nation and destroy our fragile economy.
Perhaps, Obama and AL Gore should have a beer together and discuss Al's financial and political connection to the fraudulent/criminal IPCC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 24, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to Silence
Oh, shut the fuck up, off-topic troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
November 24, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to Silence
"...destroy our fragile economy." Durrrrrrrrrr! How do you think our economy became "fragile"? Numbnuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to Silence
Look in your mirror and tell yourself to shut the fuck up. Maybe then you'll understand that "silence" means SILENCE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:21 PM
Silence broke his silence.
With some more of Fox News dittopoints.
Silence, you are behind the times as usual, don't you know that hoax was a hoax?
Now it is referred to as the "Global warming/ climate hoax hoax."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 24, 2009 1:25 PM in reply to JEP07
Your house of lies is falling. Enjoy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
November 24, 2009 1:30 PM in reply to Silence
/fart
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:34 PM in reply to Silence
You mean this House of Lies?
"WMD's in Iraq"
"Saddam subsidized Bin Laden"
"We do not torture"
"Who could have imagined that someone would crash a plane into the Twin Towers."
"They will welcome us with open arms"
Please, when you start talking about lies you just remind us of what the Cheney/Bush junta did to us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 24, 2009 2:21 PM in reply to JEP07
That house already fell. You're a little behind the times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 24, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to Silence
If you can't remember history you are doomed to repeat it. Silence you just bought some more lies from the same shop.
Global climate change is real, dangerous and accelerating. The science behind it has actually been known for a very long time. And no, the change is not tracking the computer models -- it's by far worse. Little things like defrosting Permafrost containing ten times the amount of methane currently in the atmosphere. Not currently in most of the climate models.
So, if I'm wrong and you're right -- a few decades of lost income.
If you're wrong and I'm right -- everybody's grandchildren fry.
My assumption is that you are either to ignorant or to cowardly to actually look at the facts.
Further more, I bet you believed the tobacco companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 24, 2009 7:35 PM in reply to AJM
Good God. What a moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 24, 2009 8:01 PM in reply to Silence
Global cooling. Global Warming.
Reality - Fraud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 25, 2009 9:09 AM in reply to Silence
Still a sucker, Silence?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 5:15 PM in reply to Silence
Where's Osama bin Laden?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
November 24, 2009 1:32 PM
Of all that is written about health care reform, this article is what Obama and Emmanuel deem required reading? Very disappointing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 24, 2009 1:36 PM in reply to wbgonne
It is a mighty leap of skewed logic that makes this the only article they found enlightening.
Downright simpleminded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 24, 2009 1:51 PM in reply to wbgonne
And exactly where does it say this is the only healthcare article that's required reading? Just keep making it up, dude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
November 24, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to FreeRider
I didn't say "only." Dude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to wbgonne
You said "this article".
That means "one," as in "only".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
November 24, 2009 9:48 PM in reply to JNagarya
Wrong, Ace. The two words -- "one" and "only" -- are not only spelled differently, they have ... different meanings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 11:32 PM in reply to wbgonne
And the Constitution begins with the three word:
"We the individual".
Or is it:
"I the people."
"Only" is one, and no more than that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
November 24, 2009 2:25 PM in reply to wbgonne
Actually, no. Several studies, such as the one comparing Medicare reimbursement rates in Brownsville v El Paso v the Mayo Clinic were also required of pretty much any Dem with a role in leadership. The difference between this administration and the last is that they don't just write the talking points then source it to match, they actually respect the work writers do and want to have an informed discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
November 24, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
This is policy wonk minutiae. Why isn't the president out there talking about the Big Picture in health care reform? Why isn't he directing his staff to advocate for the public option? The game is getting away from the Dems and Obama is missing his chance to lead. If they screw up health care reform -- which looks increasingly likely -- Obama and the Dems are going to suffer. Deservedly so. Just how much control does a political party need before it can achieve its most important policy objective? And 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan? What a waste.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 24, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to wbgonne
Good golly, these complaints are getting convoluted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
November 24, 2009 2:03 PM
The piece is really interesting -- if you are a health care policy buff. I still struggle to understand how the bill will encouarge us to leave the fee-for-service model. . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
November 24, 2009 2:08 PM in reply to Mateo123
If the public option dies, the bill is primarily a health insurance mandate. That's all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artappraiser
November 24, 2009 2:58 PM
Interesting that the Atlantic article is about deficit reduction potential as much as it is about health care reform.
Also, it's almost amusing in a way how so many commenters put the focus on Rahm Emmanuel, as if Obama is a clueless guy who just recommends articles to his Chief of Staff for the heck of it, and in doing so doesn't expect his Chief of Staff to express this to Staff of which he is Chief. There's almost this kind of intent to suggest Emmanuel has taken Obama captive and won't let him hire a Chief of Staff of his own choosing....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
November 24, 2009 3:08 PM
Rahm needs to be let loose. He always seems to be just hovering in the background...waiting for a chance to kick someone's ass. 150 lbs soaking wet or not.
I think he's wasted talent as Chief of Staff. Dems keep whining that we don't have someone loud and obnoxious to rally behind...he'd be perfect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bmull
November 25, 2009 7:13 AM
Brownstein's column is essentially the White House talking points. The WH probably wrote it, and leaked this story to draw attention to it. In any event, people always like it when they read something that validates exactly what they were thinking already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
November 25, 2009 9:36 AM
Jon Walker on FireDogLake responds to Brownstein's post:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/25/ron-brownstein-is-completely-uninformed-rahm-emanuel-is-a-fool-for-thinking-otherwise/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
November 25, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to condew
Now, now, now. Don't go confusing the fanboys (and girls) with those pesky, liberal facts. And don't expect the FreepRiders, Stroszeks, JNagarayas, and the lousgirls of the world (or any of the rest of the authoritarian-leaning sycophants) to go read that thing. They hate that. Way too many words. And besides, they're the wrong kind of words.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 7, 2010 12:33 AM
That's bullshit. Every night Olbermann and Schultz tell us how Obama has thrown healthcare and the progressives under the bus. It was Olbermann who called for the president to be primaried. Both shows are filled with Huffington posters whining about how XYZ "just isn't good enough" and why Obama should fire Geithner and Summers and Bernanke and why Joe Biden should resign.
They're calling the jobs problem Obama's Katrina. As if Obama is responsible for the job losses. In January, we lost 750K+ jobs. In october that number is down to 190K. He made it clear that recovery would be a long hard slog and that things would take a while to turn around. Clearly things are moving in the right direction but you never hear about that.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?