Leaderless: Senate Pushes For Public Option Without Obama's Support

[katandmoon]

President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up.

"The leadership understands that this is a somewhat risky strategy, but we may be within striking distance. A signal from the president could be enough to put us over the top," said one Senate Democratic leadership aide. Such pleading is exceedingly rare on Capitol Hill and comes only after Senate leaders exhausted every effort to encourage Obama to engage.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

[Clio the Leo]

1. WH denied this Friday evening....

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/10/white_house_denies_report_that_it_wants_to_weaken_public_plan.php#

Oct 23 2009, 6:08 pm by Marc Ambinder

White House Denies Report That It Wants To Weaken Public Plan
The White House is denying reports that officials are pressuring Sen. Harry Reid to scale back the scope of the "public option" that'll be attached to the Senate health insurance bill. Talking Points Memo reported, based on unnamed sources close to the negotiations, that the White House is "skeptical" of a public option that includes a state opt-out choice, preferring -- and advocating for -- a public option that would kick in only if the private exchange failed to lower costs.

"The report is false. The White House continues to work with the Senate on the merging of the two bills," said Dan Pfeiffer, a top White House aide whose portfolio includes health care. "We are making good progress toward enacting comprehensive health reform."

The TPM notes that Sen, Jay Rockefeller sent out a seemingly unprompted press release rejecting the "trigger" option. It claims that the White House's pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is based on President Obama's desire to accommodate the wishes of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who supports a trigger-only public plan and who voted "yes" on the Senate Finance Committee's health care draft.

[katandmoon]

2. And this article specifically disputes that denial.

[TomCADem]

3. Wish It Had A Source.

What I wonder about the article is that it has someone talking about President Obama's state of mind. Heck, Rush Limbaugh was saying that even if the thesis was a hoax, he knows that is what President Obama is thinking. This OP article does the same thing.

[jbnow]

9. "multiple Democratic sources" not good enough. I've read 'some say'

and 'insiders say' and 'sources say' and so on and one said this and one said that

Some are wrong and/or some are lying and/or some are trying to create more division and/or some are right
or not.

at least that is what my sources say, the reliable and unreliable and imaginary ones.

I hope this article is wrong

[TomCADem]

25. The Source Is Reporting What Obama Is Thinking, Not What He Is Saying

That is the issue with the article. It has sources reporting on President Obama's concerns, but no descriptions of what President Obama is actually saying. Put it another way, if the source said, "Obama said...," this is believable. But if the source says, "Obama is concerned that . . .," then I am wondering how does this source no what President Obama is thinking?

Some folks would say it is semantics, but I think it is an important difference between journalism and commentary.

[Clio the Leo]

4. So you're calling Dan Pfeiffer a liar?

That's your prerogative, so be it.

But I'll take Dan Pfeiffer over "unnamed sources" any day.

[mucifer]

5. Unless it's Seymour Hirsch's unnamed sources. He does it well.

His stuff always pans out.

[Clio the Leo]

10. lol, is he going to tell us next that Barack Obama is funneling money to al qaeda? NT

[katandmoon]

6. His denial was as unspecific as it gets.

[SpartanDem]

8. Valerie Jarret made a more specific denial that day

Earlier this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, White House Sr. Adviser Valerie Jarrett offered a strong defense not only of the public option, but also of President Obama's commitment to it. (Update: Importantly, Jarrett rejected Joe Scarborough's suggestion that President Obama is pushing for the so-called "trigger.")

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/23/796285/-Jarrett-on-Pres.-Obama:-Hes-committed-to-the-public-option

[katandmoon]

14. That was then.

[vaberella]

22. So was your article...what's the point?!

I'd sooner take a named source than an unnamed senate aide, source, or staffer or what not any day.

[phleshdef]

13. Not as "unspecific" as the unnamed sources in the BS article you are trying to sell.

[katandmoon]

15. His vague denial speaks for itself. It left plenty of wiggle room.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Sigh... new to the ways of Washington, or think the rules no longer apply?

That is not a denial. It is a time honored tactic.

"The report is false."

That's a classic non-denial denial unless you specify how the report is false. It's like when Woodward and Bernstein published that the CREEP guy told the grand jury Mitchell ran the slush fund. He came out and said the story was false... which it was. Mitchell was, in fact, in charge of the slush fund (the major revelation in the story) but the guy never said that to the Grand Jury because they didn't ask him who ran the slush fund.

The unadorned "the story is false" is what you say if any particular of a story is false. This is a standard form found primarily in Washington and statements by defense attorneys pre-spinning cases on TV.

A person with an interest in actually denying something comes out and says what they're denying in a way that leaves not doubt as to what they're saying.

Either a) the WH wants to deceive, or b) the White House wants to sow confusion, or c) the White House is too dumb to make a simple declarative statement.

I reject c. The WH is not dumb. a and b are both possible, but neither is a good way to talk to the public in a representative Democracy. We really are supposed to know what our government is up to.

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. It's funny, but this crap article has been posted at least 4 times, and not once..

did the o.p. bother to include this excerpt. Does anyone not care about all these articles popping up with "unnamed Democratic insiders"? Why do the unnamed sources want the president to have more spine than they do? If they have something to say, why not say it on the record? And why is this particular article, with all it's anonymous sources, being pushed so hard here?

[joeycola]

37. ha ha. That 'denial' is a joke.

[Pirate Smile]

7. More Huffington Post crap. Who needs Drudge when Huff Post will do their job for them.

[firedupdem]

11. +1 n/t

[Go2Peace]

30. Hmm... Amazing, Someone else is posting the same thing in another op

You related ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6851797&mesg_id=6851830

[phleshdef]

12. More multiple unnamed sources can kiss my ass. Won't buy a story with that in it, EVER again.

Automatically discredited and unrec'd

[quantass]

17. Hmm..doesnt seem to fit Obama to be honest...He isn't stupid to pass up an opt-out for a trigger

It doesnt fit. You see him on tv upset with insurers and yet he still wants to help them? I know he did those deals which was a terrible decision but recall the industry screwed him by saying they will raise rates if any reform passed. This story needs sources because logic says he would be more for unifying and going with the rest of senate for an opt-out rather than a trigger. The trigger is a disaster and has no benefits. An opt-out is the last compromise and in the end it seems acceptable.

[dolphindance]

18. Dude, I'm tried of your anti-Obama BS. Unrecced. (eom)

[vaberella]

21. +1. This too. n/t

[boppers]

19. WE'RE DOOOMED!

Oh, wait, this is another hit piece.


Nevermind.

[vaberella]

20. Debunked from my unnamed source who hates their unnamed source and secret staffers.

As such...Unrecc'd.

[Undercurrent]

23. "White House source"

or "White Horse souse"?



The msm is awash with "sources" these days. It's tiring and thin.

[ind_thinker2]

24. It is possible Insurance co's are unnamed source, they want to create a progressive revolt

we should give senate/house/pres a chance to merge a bill.

Now even if senate did not have votes for public option and trigger was the fallback. nobody would accept it.

its very unfortunate.

[Aramchek]

26. this article revealed itself as BS the instant it implied Obama was siding with Big Insurance

[TheWebHead]

27. not sure why there's such unified denial about this

it was clear once Obama attached himself so firmly to Snowe that the public option that went beyond her idea of a trigger was dead, and that all the positioning you're currently seeing in congress is to give the impression they gave it their best shot with the base. Obama will take the political hit from the base, but republicans and independents will view him more positively for going against Pelosi and the highly partisan house for the first time in his presidency.

There's a growing perception that Obama is anti-business, and that belief coupled with double-digit unemployment and a bond market wary of deficits and added entitlement programs could lead to an even slower recovery and big '10 losses. Running trillion dollar deficits and a cratering dollar should convince people we need to grow up on this "we need to get ours because Bush got his unfunded war" stance. There's no money, therefor we need to lower expectations for change.

[JTFrog]

29. To what do you attribute your particular brand of psychic?

Media Spin or Self-Delusion?

"but republicans and independents will view him more positively for going against Pelosi and the highly partisan house for the first time in his presidency."

:wtf: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[vaberella]

32. S/he could be a conservadem...which means Repub masquerading.n/t

[vaberella]

31. Obama didn't attach himself to Snowe. Baucus did. You sound like a Repub. n/t

[joeycola]

34. Rahm (aka the WH) has aggressively been courting Snowe and you know it or

just continue to hide your head in the sand.

And name calling another DU member is so so so so Rovian!!

[vaberella]

35. Nope... I don't know that. Do you have a secret senate source too? n/t

[joeycola]

36. Google is up and running.

[Go2Peace]

33. "Get ours"? Access to healthcare for everyone is not "getting ours" now that we have a democratic

Pres.

Lower expectations? Yeah, let's just let them keep allowing 50,000 people a year to die because they can't get or don't have the money.

And you are mistaken, we can't afford NOT to make these changes. We indeed have serious challenges, and this is part of the way out of it. We are not going to gain financial solvency without solving this issue and others and completely changing our way of thinking.